G.R. No. 127767 - NILO R. JUMALON, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, AND MA. ASUNCION DE LEON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the rescission of the Contract of Sale between complainant and respondent and ordering respondent Jumalon: 1. To refund complainant the amount of One Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos (P130,000.00) representing complainants downpayment and partial payments, with legal interest to herein complainant; 2. To refund complainant the amount of Two Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P280,000.00) representing her loan proceeds from Majalco which was assigned to respondent, plus interest, penalties and other charges imposed by NHMFC; 3. To pay complainant Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as moral damages; 4. To pay this Board Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as administrative fine for violation of Sections 4 and 5 of P.D. No. 957; 5. To return to complainant the following: a) BPI Check No. 93833 dated November 30, 1991 in the amount of P11,705.64; and b) BPI Check No. 93834 dated December 31, 1991 in the amount of P95,000.00. Complainant, in turn, is hereby ordered to fully settle her account with NHMFC after respondent has satisfied the above amount and to immediately cause the Register of Deeds to effect the transfer of title over the subject property back to respondents name. SO ORDERD. The arbiters decision was appealed to the Board of Commissioners of HLURB which affirmed it. On appeal to the Office of the President, the decision was likewise affirmed but the award of moral damages was deleted being without basis. [2] On November 23, 1995, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review of the decision of the Office of the President. [3] On May 15, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision affirming the appealed decision in all respects. [4] Hence, this appeal. [5] The Issues The issues raised are (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres and the HLURB declaring the rescission of the contract of sale of a house and lot between the petitioner and private respondent and (2) whether the right of the private respondent to demand for the rescission of the sale has prescribed. The Courts Ruling We find the petition without merit. The issues raised are factual. In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. [6] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, [7] unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule. [8] Nonetheless, we agree with the Court of Appeals that respondent de Leon was entitled to annul the sale. There was fraud in the sale of the subject house. It is not safely habitable. It is built in a subdivision area where there is an existing 30-meter right of way of the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) with high-tension wires over the property, posing a danger to life and property. The construction of