This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-09-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In the instances where the jurisdiction of the HLURB was upheld, the allegations in the complaint clearly showed that the case involved the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in a sale of real estate under P.D. No. 957,[25] or the complaint for specific performance sought to compel the subdivision developer to comply with its undertaking under the contract to sell,[26] or the claim by the subdivision developer would have been properly pleaded as a counterclaim in the HLURB case filed by the buyer against the developer to avoid splitting causes of action.[27] | |||||