Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84187:59607&catid=1594&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 23:52:14+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 207133, March 09, 2015 - SWIRE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JAYNE YU, Respondent.
SWIRE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JAYNE YU, Respondent.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated January 24, 2013 and Resolution 2 dated April 30, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 121175.
Respondent Jayne Yu and petitioner Swire Realty Development Corporation entered into a Contract to Sell on July 25, 1995 covering one residential condominium unit, specifically Unit 3007 of the Palace of Makati, located at P. Burgos corner Caceres Sts., Makati City, with an area of 137.30 square meters for the total contract price of P7,519,371.80, payable in equal monthly installments until September 24, 1997. Respondent likewise purchased a parking slot in the same condominium building for P600,000.00.
On September 24, 1997, respondent paid the full purchase price of P7,519,371.80 for the unit while making a down payment of P20,000.00 for the parking lot. However, notwithstanding full payment of the contract price, petitioner failed to complete and deliver the subject unit on time. This prompted respondent to file a Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Expanded National Capital Region Field Office (ENCRFO).
On the other hand, [respondent] is hereby directed to immediately update her account insofar as the parking slot is concerned, without interest, surcharges or penalties charged therein.
All other claims and counterclaims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
Respondent then elevated the matter to the HLURB Board of Commissioners.
We find merit in the appeal. The report on the ocular inspection conducted on the subject condominium project and subject unit shows that the amenities under the approved plan have not yet been provided as of May 3, 2002, and that the subject unit has not been delivered to [respondent] as of August 28, 2002, which is beyond the period of development of December 1999 under the license to sell. The delay in the completion of the project as well as of the delay in the delivery of the unit are breaches of statutory and contractual obligations which entitles [respondent] to rescind the contract, demand a refund and payment of damages.
The delay in the completion of the project in accordance with the license to sell also renders [petitioner] liable for the payment of administrative fine.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the HLURB Board of Commissioners in a Resolution 7 dated June 14, 2007.
Unfazed, petitioner appealed to the Office of the President (OP) on August 7, 2007.
Records show that [petitioner] received its copy of the 30 March 2006 HLURB Decision on 17 April 2006 and instead of filing an appeal, it opted first to file a Motion for Reconsideration on 28 April 2006 or eleven (11) days thereafter. The said motion interrupted the 15-day period to appeal.
On 23 July 2007, [petitioner] received the HLURB Resolution dated 14 June 2007 denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
Based on the ruling in United Overseas Bank Philippines, Inc. v. Ching (486 SCRA 655), the period to appeal decisions of the HLURB Board of Commissioners to the Office of the President is 15 days from receipt thereof pursuant to Section 15 of P.D. No. 957 and Section 2 of P.D. No. 1344 which are special laws that provide an exception to Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18.
Accordingly, the [petitioner] had only four (4) days from receipt on 23 July 2007 of HLURB Resolution dated 14 June 2007, or until 27 July 2007 to file the Notice of Appeal before this Office. However, [petitioner] filed its appeal only on 7 August 2007 or eleven (11) days late.
Thus, this Office need not delve on the merits of the appeal filed as the records clearly show that the said appeal was filed out of time.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [petitioner]’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED, and the HLURB Decision dated 30 March 2006 and HLURB Resolution dated 14 June 2007 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Immediately thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration against said decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the HLURB Third Division Board of Commissioners, dated March 30, 2006 and June 14, 2007, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE, and the HLURB ENCRFO Decision dated October 19, 2004 is hereby REINSTATED.
Respondent sought reconsideration of said resolution, however, the same was denied by the OP in a Resolution 12 dated August 18, 2011.
Consequently, respondent filed an appeal to the CA.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolution dated 17 February 2009 and Order dated 18 August 2011 of the Office of the President, in O.P. Case No. 07-H-283, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated 30 March 2006 and Resolution dated 14 June 2007 of the HLURB Board of Commissioners in HLURB Case No. REM-A-050127-0014, are REINSTATED.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, however, the CA denied the same in a Resolution dated April 30, 2013.
In essence, the issues are: (1) whether petitioner’s appeal was timely filed before the OP; and (2) whether rescission of the contract is proper in the instant case.
We shall resolve the issues in seriatim.
As pointed out by public respondent, the aforecited administrative order allows aggrieved party to file its appeal with the Office of the President within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision complained of. Nonetheless, such thirty-day period is subject to the qualification that there are no other statutory periods of appeal applicable. If there are special laws governing particular cases which provide for a shorter or longer reglementary period, the same shall prevail over the thirty-day period provided for in the administrative order. This is in line with the rule in statutory construction that an administrative rule or regulation, in order to be valid, must not contradict but conform to the provisions of the enabling law.
Records show that petitioner received a copy of the HLURB Board of Commissioners’ decision on April 17, 2006. Correspondingly, it had fifteen days from April 17, 2006 within which to file its appeal or until May 2, 2006. However, on April 28, 2006, or eleven days after receipt of the HLURB Board of Commissioner’s decision, it filed a Motion for Reconsideration, instead of an appeal.
Concomitantly, Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18 23 provides that the time during which a motion for reconsideration has been pending with the ministry or agency concerned shall be deducted from the period for appeal. Petitioner received the HLURB Board Resolution denying its Motion for Reconsideration on July 23, 2007 and filed its appeal only on August 7, 2007. Consequently therefore, petitioner had only four days from July 23, 2007, or until July 27, 2007, within which to file its appeal to the OP as the filing of the motion for reconsideration merely suspended the running of the 15-day period. However, records reveal that petitioner only appealed to the OP on August 7, 2007, or eleven days late. Ergo, the HLURB Board of Commissioners’ decision had become final and executory on account of the fact that petitioner did not promptly appeal with the OP.
In like manner, we find no cogent reason to exempt petitioner from the effects of its failure to comply with the rules.
Thus, while there may be exceptions for the relaxation of technical rules principally geared to attain the ends of justice, petitioner’s fatuous belief that it had a fresh 15-day period to elevate an appeal with the OP is not the kind of exceptional circumstance that merits relaxation.
Article 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The unit of the [respondent] is Unit 3007, which was labeled as P2-07, at the Palace of Makati, located at the corner of P. Burgos Street and Caceres Street, Poblacion, Makati City. Based on the approved plans, the said unit is at the 26th Floor.
During the time of inspection, the said unit appears to be completed except for the installation of kitchen cabinets and fixtures.
The delivered unit has high density fiber (HDF) floorings instead of narra wood parquet.
The [petitioners] have also installed baseboards as borders instead of pink porrino granite boarders.
Walls are newly painted by the respondent and the alleged obvious signs of cladding could not be determined.
Window opening at the master bedroom conforms to the approved plans. As a result it leaves a 3 inches (sic) gap between the glass window and partitioning of the master’s bedroom.
It was verified and confirmed that a square column replaced the round column, based on the approved plans.
At the time of inspection, amenities such as swimming pool and change room are seen at the 31st floor only. These amenities are reflected on the 27th floor plan of the approved condominium plans. Health spa for men and women, Shiatsu Massage Room, Two-Level Sky Palace Restaurant and Hall for games and entertainments, replete with billiard tables, a bar, indoor golf with spectacular deck and karaoke rooms were not yet provided by the [petitioner].
The [master’s] bedroom door bore sign of poor quality of workmanship as seen below.
The stairs have been installed in such manner acceptable to the undersigned.
From the foregoing, it is evident that the report on the ocular inspection conducted on the subject condominium project and subject unit shows that the amenities under the approved plan have not yet been provided as of May 3, 2002, and that the subject unit has not been delivered to respondent as of August 28, 2002, which is beyond the period of development of December 1999 under the license to sell. Incontrovertibly, petitioner had incurred delay in the performance of its obligation amounting to breach of contract as it failed to finish and deliver the unit to respondent within the stipulated period. The delay in the completion of the project as well as of the delay in the delivery of the unit are breaches of statutory and contractual obligations which entitle respondent to rescind the contract, demand a refund and payment of damages.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; rollo, pp. 43-52.
15 393 Phil. 697 (2000).
16 467 Phil. 190 (2004).
17 521 Phil. 146 (2006).
18 Section 15. Decision. The case shall be decided within thirty (30) days from the time the same is submitted for decision. The Decision may order the revocation of the registration of the subdivision or condominium project, the suspension, cancellation, or revocation of the license to sell and/or forfeiture, in whole or in part, of the performance bond mentioned in Section 6 hereof. In case forfeiture of the bond is ordered, the Decision may direct the provincial or city engineer to undertake or cause the construction of roads and other requirements for the subdivision or condominium as stipulated in the bond, chargeable to the amount forfeited. Such decision shall be immediately executory and shall become final after the lapse of 15 days from the date of receipt of the Decision.
19REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISION LOTS AND CONDOMINIUMS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF.
20 Section 2. The decision of the National Housing Authority shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of its receipt. It is appealable only to the President of the Philippines and in the event the appeal is filed and the decision is not reversed and/or amended within a period of thirty (30) days, the decision is deemed affirmed. Proof of the appeal of the decision must be furnished the National Housing Authority.
21EMPOWERING THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRIT OF EXECUTION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DECISION UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957.
22 SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office of the President, supra note 15, at 703-704.
23 PRESCRIBING RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING APPEALS TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.
24J. Tiosejo Investment Corp. v. Ang, G.R. No. 174149, September 8, 2010, 630 SCRA 334, 343.
25 Po v. Dampal, 622 Phil. 523, 529 (2009).
26Loon v. Power Master, Inc., G.R. No. 189404, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 440, 453.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.