G.R. No. 151821
April 14, 2004
Facts
BPI bought a condominium from ALS Management Corporation. BPI alleged that ALS made and disseminated brochures and other sales propaganda in and before May 1980, which made warranties as to the facilities, improvements, infrastructures or other forms of development of the condominium units (known as ‘The Twin Towers’) it was offering for sale to the public. Such warranties include the installation of an intercom system and a closed-circuit TV monitor, the provision of three toilets with bath, a bar, and a balcony. Because of such warranties, BPI was induced to buy the condominium unit which is yet to be constructed.
In contravention of ALS’ warranties and of good engineering practices, the condominium unit purchased by BPI suffered from the following defects and/or deficiencies: (1) the clearance in the walkway at the balcony is not sufficient for passage; (2) the anodized aluminum used in the door and windows were damaged; (3) the kitchen counter tops/splashboard suffered from cracks and were mis-cut and misaligned; (4) the partition between living and master’s bedroom was unpainted and it had no access for maintenance due to aluminum fixed glass cover; (5) the varifold divider, including the bar and counter top cabinet were not installed; (6) the toilets had no tiles; (7) no closed circuit TV was installed; and (8) rainwater leaks inside or into the condominium unit.’
ALS filed a complaint for collection of sum of money for the registration. However, BPI refused to pay because ALS failed to comply with their warranties.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of BPI. Hence, this petition.
ALS contended that the HLURB has jurisdiction, and not the regular courts. It further contended that they cannot be obliged to provide for the facilities they had mentioned in the brochure because they had placed a disclaimer on such.
Issues
- Whether or not the regular courts has jurisdiction.
- Whether or not the developer is in clear violation of its warranties and representations
Held
First Issue
Section 1 of PD No 1344 provided that the National Housing Authority (NHA) shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases over claims involving refund, cases involving specific performance and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 648, the regulatory functions of the NHA were transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. Thereafter, the functions of HSRC were transferred to HLURB. Therefore, the HLURB has jurisdiction over cases provided for under Section 1 of PD No. 1344. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the HLURB over cases enumerated in Section 1 of PD No. 1344 is exclusive.
In this case, BPI’s counterclaim — being one for specific performance (correction of defects/deficiencies in the condominium unit) and damages — falls under the jurisdiction of the HLURB as provided by Section 1 of PD No. 1344.
However, estoppel bars the petitioner from questioning the jurisdiction of the Court. The general rule is that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court. Indeed, the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, provided that such action would not result in the mockery of the tenets of fair play. As an exception to the rule, the issue may not be raised if the party is barred by estoppel.
Here, petitioner proceeded with the trial, and only after a judgment unfavorable to it did it raise the issue of jurisdiction. Thus, it may no longer deny the trial court’s jurisdiction, for estoppel bars it from doing so.
Second Issue
Yes. The brochure that was disseminated indicated features that would be provided each condominium unit; and that, under Section 19 of PD No. 957, would form part of the sales warranties of petitioner. Respondent relied on the brochure in its decision to purchase a unit. Since the former failed to deliver certain items stated therein, then there was a clear violation of its warranties and representations.
Even if there has been a disclaimer on the part of the respondent, the disclaimer should only apply to the general concept of the project and not on the specific facilities included therein. The failure to provide for such facilities is a breach of warranties.
The brochure contained a disclaimer which says that “[t]he particulars stated . . . as well as the details and visuals shown . . . are intended to give a general idea of the project to be undertaken, and as such, are not to be relied [upon] as statements or representations of fact.” This general disclaimer should apply only to the general concept of the project that petitioner aptly characterizes thus: ‘. . . Destined to reflect condominium living at its very best’ and ‘its design . . . will make the project the only one of its kind in the Philippines.’
This disclaimer, however, should not apply to the features and the amenities that the brochure promised to provide each condominium unit. Petitioner was thus in breach when it failed to deliver a “closed-circuit TV monitor through which residents from their apartments can see their guests . .”