MA LUISA DAZON v.

KENNETH YAP, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

610 SCRA 19 | January 25, 2010
Del Castillo, J.

Doctrine: Administrative agencies being tribunals of limited jurisdiction can only wield such
powers as are specifically granted to them by their enabling statutes.

FACTS
The present case is a petition for Certiorari assailing several orders of the RTC of Lapu-
Lapu City which granted the Motion to Withdraw Information filed by the public prosecutor and
likewise denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
It was alleged that petitioner Dazon entered into a contract with Primetown Property, in
which respondent Yap was the president, for a purchase of a unit in Kiener Hills Mactan
Condominium. Petitioner claims that she already made several payments amounting to more than
a million pesos. However, Primetown was unable to finish the said project which prompted the
petitioner to demand a refund pursuant to Section 23 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 957 (1976),
otherwise known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree". Despite this,
no refund was made hence the filing of a criminal complaint against the respondent for violating
the aforecited law. Probable cause was found and an information was filed with the RTC. However,
the DOJ, upon the initiative of the respondent, rendered a Resolution ordering the trail prosecutor
to cause the withdrawal of the said information. The RTC granted the motion to withdraw.
Petitioner now contends that there is no law expressly granting the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board over criminal actions arising from violations of PD 957. On the other hand, the
respondent put forward the contention the issue in the case is the finding of probable cause in
which the Secretary of Justice failed to establish the presence of such.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the House and Land Use Regulatory Board has jurisdiction over the present case- NO.
It was undisputed between the parties that the regular courts have jurisdiction over
the criminal aspect of PD 957. The contention lies on the basis used by the DOJ for the
withdrawal of Information. Upon perusal of the assailed resolution, the Court held that the
basis for which was DOJ’s finding that it is the HLURB who has jurisdiction over the
present case. In the assailed resolution, the DOJ asserted that the HLURB has exclusive
jurisdiction over cases involving real estate business and practices under PD 957. However,
jurisdiction is “conferred by law and determined by the material averments in the
complaint as well as the character of the relief sought”. A perusal of PD 957 as amended
by PD 1344 would show that the HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real
estate trade and businesses. They may also adjudicate certain cases involving unsound real
estate business practices, claims involving refund and cases involving specific performance
of contractual and statutory obligations. Evidently, the HLURB was not vested to hear or
decide cases that are criminal in nature.
The Court reiterated that administrative agencies being tribunals of limited
jurisdiction can only wield such powers as are specifically granted to them by their
enabling statutes. PD 957 limited the power of the HLRUB to the aforecited and to
prescribe and impose fines not exceeding 10,000 pesos.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 Moreover, Sec 20 of BP 129 mandates that the Regional Trial Courts exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases except those falling under the exclusive
and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed October 2, 2002 and January
13, 2003 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City, Branch 54, are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The said Court is DIRECTED to proceed with the arraignment of the respondent
and to hear the case with dispatch.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2