G.R. No. 208185 - PRISCILLA ZAFRA ORBE, VS. FILINVEST LAND, INC..DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, please be informed that we are now hereby canceling your account effective thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, Very truly yours, COLLECTION DEPARTMENT By: _________________(sgd.)_________________ MA. LOUELLA D. SENIA Republic of the Philippines ) Makati City )S.S. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this OCT 06 2004, affiant exhibiting to me Community Tax Certificate No. 05465460 issued on February 09, 2004 at Manila. (sgd.) AVELIO L. SALCEDO NOTARY PUBLIC UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2004 PTR NO. 3703389 3/01/04 SAN JUAN IBP N0.609984 2/04/04 PASIG CITY Doc. No. 314 Page No. 64 Book No. XVIII Series of 2004 [15] Noting that "efforts . . . to seek for a reconsideration of said cancellation . . . proved futile," and that the parcel had since been sold by Filinvest to a certain Ruel Ymana "in evident bad faith," [16] Orbe filed against Filinvest a Complaint for refund with damages dated November 13, 2007 before the HLURB Field Office. [17] Orbe emphasized that she had made payments "beginning June, 2001 up to October, 2004." [18] She further asserted that the October 4, 2004 Notice did not amount to an "effective cancellation by notarial act." [19] In its Answer with Counterclaim, Filinvest asserted that Orbe failed to make 24 monthly amortization payments on her account, and thus, could not benefit from Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6552. According to Filinvest, the P608,648.20 paid by Orbe from June 17, 2001 to July 14, 2004 covered only the reservation fee, down payment, and late payment charges, exclusive of the monthly amortization payments stipulated in the Purchase Agreement. [20] In his July 25, 2008 Decision, [21] Arbiter Soriano of the HLURB Field Office ruled in favor of Orbe. He held that since Orbe made payments "from 17 June 2001 to 14 July 2004, or a period of more than two years," [22] all of which should be credited to the principal, [23] she was entitled to a refund of the cash surrender value equivalent to 50% of the total payments she had made, pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6552. [24] Filinvest appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners. [25] In its April 15, 2009 Decision, [26] the HLURB Board of Commissioners affirmed Arbiter Soriano's Decision. [27] It disagreed with Arbiter Soriano's conclusion that Orbe had paid two (2) years' installments. It specifically noted rather, that the buyer's payments fell two (2) months short of the equivalent of two years of installments. [28] It added, however, that "[e]quity . . . should come in especially where, as here, the payment period is relatively short and the monthly installment is relatively of substantial amounts." [29] Thus, it concluded that Orbe was still entitled to a 50% refund. [30] Filinvest then appealed to the Office of the President. [31] In its February 4, 2011 Decision, [32] the Office of the President sustained the conclusion that Orbe was entitled to a 50% refund. It disagreed with the HLURB Board of Commissioners' finding that Section 3's benefits we