G.R. No. 254543

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is rendered finding [petitioner], [VIVIEN] M. CADUNGOG, NOT GUILTY of Sec. 39 in relation to Sec. 25 of P.D. 957 and DISMISSES the Information against her on reasonable doubt; the civil liability of each party to each [sic] is NOT, however, extinguished, thus, the parties MUST comply with either of the following prestations: a.) [Petitioner] MUST deliver the condo unit unto [respondent] within thirty (30) days from delivery/payment of the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND and NINE HUNDRED FIFTY ([PHP] 258,950.00); or b.) [Petitioner] MUST deliver to/reimburse [respondent] the amount of THREE MILLION TWO HUNDRED FORTY-ONE THOUSAND and FIFTY ([PHP] 3,241.050.00) PESOS with TWELVE PERCENTUM (12%) PER ANNUM interest thereon. The choice of either [alternative] is granted unto [respondent], SUNG HA JUNG. Costs de officio. 13 In so ruling, the RTC found that per Contract to Sell entered into by the parties, the consideration for the condominium unit was pegged at PHP 3,500,000.00. It was undisputed that respondent only paid the amount of PHP 3,241,050.00, thereby leaving the balance of PHP 258,950.00 which still remained unpaid to petitioner. Consequently, the latter was under no obligation to deliver the title of the unit to respondent under Section 25 14 of Presidential Decree No. 957. 15 Respondent then filed a Manifestation [and] Motion 16 before the RTC informing the court that he has chosen the second alternative, i.e. , for petitioner to deliver/reimburse to him the amount of PHP 3,241,050.00 already paid with interest of 12% per annum . 17 Pursuant thereto, and on respondent's motion, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution 18 on December 12, 2011, directing petitioner to comply with the RTC Decision dated September 16, 2011. This was followed by the issuance of a Notice of Levy Upon Realty Pursuant to Writ of Execution 19 covering four condominium units in Sophela Tower owned by petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner filed before the RTC a Motion to Set Aside the Judgment on Civil Liability Against the Accused 20 contending that the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the civil aspect of the case pertained to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) pursuant to Section 1 21 of Presidential Decree No. 1344. 22 The RTC denied the Motion in an Order 23 dated March 22, 2012, on the ground that its judgment on the criminal and civil aspects of the case had long become final and executory. The Petition for Annulment of Judgment Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the CA praying, among others, that the RTC Decision dated September 16, 2011, be declared as null and void insofar as it found her to be civilly liable on respondent's claim. Petitioner maintained that the judgment on the civil liability was rendered by the RTC without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. 24 The Ruling of the CA On August 20, 2019, the CA dismissed t