G.R. NO. 167452 - JESTRA DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, VS. DANIEL PONCE PACIFICO, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT JORDAN M. PIZARRAS.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the complainant and ordering respondent: To pay and/or reimburse to the complainant the total payments made amounting to Eight Hundred Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P846,600.00) with interest thereon at twelve percent (12%) per annum to be computed from the filing of the complaint on 24 February 1999 until fully paid; and To pay complainant the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as damages and attorneys fees plus the costs of litigation. [14] (Underscoring supplied) On appeal, the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB modified the decision of the Arbiter by deleting the award of P50,000 damages and ordering Jestra to pay P20,000 as attorneys fees and P10,000 administrative fine for failure to register the Contract to Sell in the Office of the Register of Deeds. By Resolution of January 27, 2003, the HLURB Board of Commissioners denied [15] Jestras motion for reconsideration. By Order [16] of December 9, 2003, the Office of the President (OP), to which the case was elevated, adopted by reference the findings of facts and conclusions of law contained in the HLURB Board Resolution of January 27, 2003. And by Order [17] dated March 18, 2004, it denied Jestras motion for reconsideration. On Jestras petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals (CA), by Decision [18] dated January 31, 2005, affirmed the Orders of the OP. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by CA Resolution [19] of March 16, 2005, Jestra (hereafter petitioner) comes before this Court on a petition for review, faulting the appellate court for: . . . adopting the OPs conclusion that penalty payments should be included in computing the total number of installment payments made by a buyer (in relation to the payment of a cash surrender value upon cancellation of a contract to sell) in spite of its exclusion from the items to be included in computing the two (2) years installment payments as provided in RA 6552 . . . adopting the OPs conclusion that petitioner failed to deliver possession of the subject property to respondent upon his full payment of the downpayment [sic] and that petitioners act of canceling the contract to sell was unconscionable despite being allowed under RA 6552. RA No. 6552 was enacted to protect buyers of real estate on installment against onerous and oppressive conditions. While the seller has under the Act the option to cancel the contract due to non-payment of installments, he must afford the buyer a grace period to pay them and, if at least two years installments have already been paid, to refund the cash surrender value of the payments. Thus Section of the Act provides: SECTION 3. In all transactions or contracts involving the sale or financing of real estate on installment payments, including residential condominium apartments but excluding industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants under Republic Act Numb