G.R. No. 128016 - SPOUSES CESAR AND ELVIRA RAET AND SPOUSES REX AND EDNA MITRA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING CORPORATION, GERONIMA G. QUE AND CAROLINA Q. VILLONGCO.

Ruling

accordingly acquitted her in a decision dated August 25, 1989. Owing to the failure of petitioners to raise money, private respondent PVDHC asked them, in separate demand letters, dated November 10, 1988, to vacate the units they were occupying. As petitioners refused to do so, it filed ejectment cases against them before the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan, which eventually ordered them on May 24, 1991 to surrender the possession of the subject units and to pay the fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit. The decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan was affirmed, first by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan and then by the Court of Appeals. [12] Petitioners tried to appeal to this Court but their appeal was dismissed on December 2, 1992. On May 18, 1988 and November 24, 1988, respectively, the spouses Raet and the spouses Mitra had earlier filed complaints against private respondent PVDHC with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan for the recovery of the supplemental costs they had paid to private respondent PVDHC. However, the complaint of the spouses Raet was dismissed on the ground that the Regional Trial Court did not have jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between subdivision buyers and developers which fall within the exclusive competence of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). On the other hand, the complaint of the spouses Mitra was withdrawn by them on April 17, 1990. The spouses Raet and the spouses Mitra then filed on April 15, 1991 a complaint for specific performance and damages against Amparo Gatus and private respondent PVDHC with the HLURB which gave judgment in petitioners favor. In a decision, dated October 8, 1991, Housing and Land Use Arbiter Arturo M. Dublado ruled: Against this factual backdrop, . . . the following observations could be made, to wit: 1. Respondents Phil-Ville and Gatus transacted with complainant for the sale of the subject housing units despite knowing fully well that they are not qualified to buy under the GSIS financing scheme. This is a fact which respondents could have readily known even before proceeding to transact with complainants. Respondents even allowed complainants to use the GSIS policies of other persons in order that complainants can avail of the GSIS loan facility to pay respondent Phil-Ville which is irregular. 2. Respondent Phil-Ville accepted payments and allowed complainants to occupy the subject premises despite knowing that they are not qualified to buy under the GSIS financing scheme and without executing a written instrument modifying the terms and conditions agreed upon between complainants and respondent Gatus. 3. It was only after several years of occupation of the subject premises by complainants that respondent Phil-Ville informed complainants that they are not qualified to purchase the subject premises. 4. Respondent Gatus did not unequivocally inform complainants in her transactions with them that sh