G.R. No. 184482 - BETHEL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VS. HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, AND SPOUSES MARJORIE AND NEMESIO VISAYA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , this Office hereby renders judgment against the respondent and orders it to immediately deliver to the complainants the Transfer Certificate of Title of the subdivision lot in question. In the event that it fails to do so, or on account of some legal or physical impossibility to deliver, the respondent is thus ordered to refund to complainants the total amount paid to it plus interest and damages reckoned from the date of filing this complaint until fully paid. Respondent is hereby ordered to pay damages to herein complainant in the sum of P20,000.00, and furthermore, to pay this Board administrative fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for violation of Sections 4, 5 and 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957. [9] The sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City, attempted to implement the decision by virtue of the Writ of Execution and Alias Writ of Execution issued by the HLURB. [10] In the last Sheriffs Report dated 1 July 2002, it was stated that he could not locate the exact address of the petitioner. [11] Proceedings with the Court of Appeals In a Petition for Certiorari with Injunction [12] filed on 29 October 2003 and docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 80225, petitioner sought to nullify the decision and the entire proceedings in the HLURB. On 7 November 2003, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in the following manner: x x x [A]side from the assailed Decision and Writs of Execution, petitioner failed to attach to the petition copies of all pleadings and documents and other material portions of the record relevant and pertinent thereto, a non compliance with Section 1, Rule 65 and Section 3, Rule 46 of the revised Rules on Civil Procedure, hence, the petition is dismissible under the last paragraph of said Section 3. ( Emphasis supplied. ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED OUTRIGHT. [13] Petitioner re-filed the petition on 5 March 2004, now docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82579. [14] This time, while copies of the required documents were attached, the same were neither duplicate originals nor certified true copies. This necessitated the issuance of a Resolution [15] dated 11 March 2004, to wit: x x x [T]he documents attached to the Petition, specifically Annexes A to F, are neither duplicate originals nor certified true copies. WHEREFORE , petitioners are hereby ordered to submit, within five (5) days from notice hereof, clear and legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the aforesaid documents. ( Emphasis in the original .) Failure to do so shall merit the dismissal of the instant Petition . [16] (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner partially complied with the Resolution of 11 March 2004 prompting the Court of Appeals to order anew the submission of certified true copies of four (4) of the annexes earlier mentioned, with a warning that its failure to do so will warrant the dismissal of the petition. Its Resolution [17] of 1 June 2004 reads in part: In Compliance with Our Resolution dated March 11, 2004