G.R. No. 165724 - ZAMORA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR ERNESTO ZAMORA, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EDILBERTO C. GALLARDO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: Declaring the complainant's suspension of payment beginning November 21, 1991, as legal and valid; As a consequence of the foregoing, holding respondent's rescission of contract over the controverted lot as illegal; and Ordering the complainant to pay the whole balance of his obligations sans penalty interest or interest of this nature except the legal interest as stipulated in their contract conditioned upon respondent's substantial compliance with his obligation as certified by the Board. [11] Aggrieved, defendants appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners. On May 29, 1995, the Board dismissed the appeal and affirmed in toto the decision of the HLURB Arbiter. [12] It noted that Amlac-Ville subdivision was registered as early as 1985, and under applicable laws, a subdivision owner/developer must complete the development of the project within one year from the date of issuance of the license of the subdivision. [13] The Board gave credence to the ocular inspection report which stated that the development of the subject subdivision was still ongoing as of 1992. It concluded that since there was no request for extension, the project remained incomplete, and Gallardo was justified in withholding his payments. Zamora Realty elevated the matter to the Office of the President (OP), which, however, dismissed the appeal in its Resolution [14] dated March 6, 2003. It then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was likewise denied in an Order [15] dated June 18, 2003. Unsatisfied, Zamora Realty filed before the CA a petition for review [16] under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court. It relied on the following grounds: We firmly submit to this Honorable Court that the Public Respondent OPP had grossly erred in not finding that the herein Private Respondent clearly violated the Contract to Sell dated October 8, 1998 (sic); The same Office likewise erred in not holding that Petitioners validly and lawfully rescinded already the said Contract to Sell dated October 8, 1998; and The said Public Respondent OPP also erred in not just requiring the herein Petitioners to reimburse any payments already made therein by the herein Private Respondent plus the lawful rate of interest thereof or in the alternative for the herein Petitioners to just give the herein Private Respondent a similar lot that can still be transferred to the said Private Respondent granting that the latter is entitled to affirmative relief from it. [17] On May 31, 2004, the CA rendered a Decision [18] dismissing the petition. It sustained the validity of respondent Gallardo's suspension of payments, and ruled that it was in accordance with Sections 20 and 23 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957. The CA stated that the development of the subdivision was still ongoing as of 1992, way beyond 1985 when it was first registered, and that such delay justified the buyer's act of suspending payment. The CA, likewise, gave weig