Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. SPS. CESAR VILLAR AND CHARLOTTE VILLAR AND JOHN DOES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 156439 2010-09-29	CLEMENCIA P. CALARA v. TERESITA FRANCISCO PEREZ, J.
The mere relationship of the parties as a subdivision developer/owner and subdivision lot buyer does not, concededly, vest the HLURB automatic jurisdiction over a case. In the cases of Roxas vs. Court of Appeals [48] and Filar Development Corporation vs. Sps. Villar,[49] this Court upheld the MTC's jurisdiction over the complaint for ejectment commenced by the subdivision developer on account of the buyer's failure to pay the installments stipulated in the party's contract to sell. In said cases, however, the buyers had no justifiable ground to stop payment of the stipulated installments and/or any of the causes of action cognizable by the HLURB under Section 1[50] of P.D. 1344.[51] In not applying the ruling in Francel Realty Corporation vs. Sycip,[52] moreover, the Court likewise took appropriate note of the fact that the buyers in said cases have not commenced an action for unsound real estate businesses practices against the subdivision developers. Here, respondents have not only instituted a complaint for violation of P.D. 957 against petitioner Clemencia Calara but had also already obtained a definitive ruling on the latter's failure to fully develop the subdivision which they cited as justification for not making further payments on Lot No. 23 of the Lophcal (Calara) Subdivision.
	GR No. 164789 2009-08-27	CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY v. SPS. AVELINO C. IGNACIO AND PRISCILLA T. IGNACIO BRION, J.
Pursuant to Roxas, we held in Pilar Development Corporation v. Villar[19] and Suntay v. Gocolay[20] that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over cases filed by subdivision or condominium owners or developers against subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers or owners. The rationale behind this can be found in the wordings of Sec. 1, PD No. 1344, which expressly qualifies that the cases cognizable by the HLURB are those instituted by subdivision or condomium buyers or owners against the project developer or owner. This is also in keeping with the policy of the law, which is to curb unscrupulous practices in the real estate trade and business.[21]
	GR NO. 154877 2007-03-27	JIN-JIN DELOS SANTOS v. SPS. REYNATO D. SARMIENTO AND LENI C. SARMIENTO AND IA-JAN SARMIENTO REALTY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The general rule is stated in Pilar Development Corporation v. Villar[50] and Suntay v. Gocolay[51] where we held that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over cases filed by subdivision or condominium owners or developers against subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers or owners. The rationale behind this can be found in the wordings of Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1344, which expressly qualifies that the cases cognizable by the HLURB are those instituted by subdivision or condomium buyers or owners against the project developer or owner. This rationale is also expressed in the preambles of P.D. No. 957 and P.D. No. 1344 which state that the policy of the law is to curb unscrupulous practices in real estate trade and business.[52]