Calalang= its about a 2 consolidated cases first case is on double sale The first sale was made for

dela cruz in favor of the group of clement in 1954 The second in favor of lucia dela cruz which was sold to iglesia

1 st case the issue which of the 2 sales are valid SC: said deal with the finality of judgment

In the first case there was a sale in favor of lucia dela cruz earlier 1945 but the owners dup of title was not presented, only that duplicate of absolute sale entered into the entry book Obviously the orgincal copy was still with the owner. SC said, the case was already decided, that the dela cruz sold to iglesia, to open it 10 years later, would not make case final, unless the decision is subsequently reversed, here something to do with remedial conclusive of judgment. Second issue: What happened a deed of sale in favor of iglesia was represent to register of deeds, reg of deeds at the time felt the group of clemente owned, and not lucia, So it was elevated by consulta, but denied by the administrator, I prepared a motion of reconsideration, bec it is really clement owned, but the decision in consulta said, no recon= denied. But once an administrator issue ruling on consulta this is binding on reg of deeds, no more appeal no more reconsideration, even reg of deeds felt clement owner Calalang intervened=she thought he had the support of reg of deeds, it might be advantageous that she joined motion of recon= but denied SC = 1 that is not the remedy bec it is an indirect attack under 48 on the title of iglesia 2 the remedy of calalang would be to appeal to the court of appeals, not certiorari So follow procedure on calalang

Justice davide a separate : sale of lucia valid, bec at that time no owner duplicate of title in 1945, and you know in voluntary transaction dapat naa owner dupblicate,

only 1971 when title reconstituted, on the other hand when clemente applied he had the owners duplicate, and clement were in actual possession of the property in his subdivision, this should be remanded to the lower court. Neverthelss the supreme court en banc.. This settled the ownership of iglesia, I notice iglesia is a powerful group , they can lobby, and you see in the cases decided by supreme court, they look kindly on iglesia, and their headquarters beside UP.

St mary case This was a case involving a notice of lis pendens that was annotated and registered already, st mary here ownership of a parcel of land in Makati, delario the other party cause to be annotated a notice of lis dis pendens In trial court= cancel lis dis pendens There are instances even not final ang case, where the decision or order of the court that the notice of LDP annotated in certificate so and so the register is orderd to immedicately cancel the notice of lis dependens, bec cancellation of . so need to requrie certificate of finality, bec notice o LDP is an interlocutory order, incidental to the case and not disposed on the merits of the case, therefore even without finality it can be registered Group of hilario appeal to CA= and requested re-annotation of notice of LDP, st mary oppose, hilario said elevate the matter in consulta, but SC said this is not one of the instances where consulta may be filed, bec a consulta is applicable, when reg of deeds is in doubt as to how to proceed a particular transaction, or dont know how to prepare a memorandum, and available when reg of deeds denies a transaction so the registrant have 5 days from receipt of denial to elevate the matter by way of consulta, this 2 situation are not present in this case. SC = said beside the case is with the CA, the case is not yet final, so these are the 2 illustrative case in sec 117 Pd 1529, last important provision , consist only 122 section, 118 about appropriations, were done with the subject pd 1529. So now we go to condo act. How do you put up a condominium corporation? Condo law was enacted june 18 1966, at that time RA 4727, I remember when somebody wants us to issue a condo title, because at that time when started in Makati, the requirements in condo law, the reg of deeds, is to issue certificate of title, by annotation master deeds at the back of the title of the land, and produce or generate owners title of condominium certificate of title, probably not consulted

with the LRA, impractical FOR REG OF DEEDS TO ANNOTATE 500 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, OR EVEN 1000, and annotate at the back of the title of the land,so iT was impractical, so the LRA issued an opinion which we adopt now, to issuance of certificate of title we will also generate 1 set of CTC similar to the title of the land, In that way everytime we issue condo CTC, we issue one set similar to the tilte of the land , one original and an owners copy of the TCT

How do we put a condo corporation: 1.) The one that gives life to condo corp is the master deed or enabling deed, if this were a corporation the it would be the articles of corporation. l in a master deed it would identify all the condominium uints that will be issued over this parcel of land have notes here prepared in 2005. The master deed or enabling deed is the basic document that give legal life to the condominium project,The Master deed should contain description of the land , and building constituting the project,should contain description of the common areas, facilities therein, survey plan, diagrammatic floor plan shall be appended to the master deeds as integral parts there of, xxx in other words in every unit issued there is a description ex. There is Comfort room Now a unit owner or A condo owner, holds a specific interest over the particular unit that he owns, on the other hand, for the common areas as to parking lot, he has undivided interest, because the share holder or the unit holder becomes automatically a member of the condo corp or association , under condo law the owner become automatically owner of the common area. Under master deeds we have also declaration of restrictions= equivalent to the bylaws: provide administration of the project, and powers of the body, maintenance and etc So what happen In this case, the moment you condo certificate of title, with the bylaws,then register of deeds issue tct but you need to have clearance also from HLURB, under condo law, a foreigner is allowed to own a condo unit, provided not 60 percent owned by Filipinos, right now we know land is scarce, we see high rise building, infront IT park there condominiums, example avida tower 1 by cebuholdings or ayala lands, some sold out in 2 weeks time.xxx

BPI vs ALS management funny case:

BPI filed a case for collection, under the law other than PD 957, other than fees for registration which is on account of the buyer, the seller can no longer ask for other fees except for the registration fee, when buyer paid in full. ALS refused to pay registration fee amounting 20,000 pesos, so BPI filed a case for the refund of the registration fees. ALS in turn file a counter claim alleging, BPI violated contract of sale, bec they represented in their brochure that he had a tv and many amenities, but BPI failed to comply with all the representations which they relied on the brochure and advertisement, so they refuse to pay them PD 957 the moment the seller fails to comply the buyer can suspend the payment And here the pipe was leaking. SO RTC upheld claim of ALS an awarded damages in favor ALS against BPI. Awarding damages for more than 1,000,000.00 one million pesos to ALS for a claim of 20,000 peso claim. They went to CA which upheld RTC SC: pd 957 jurisdicitno is in HLURB not in RTC, SC said yes its true HLURB have jurisdiction in this controversies, but PBI is not estopped, supreme court cited several cases, however when parties acceded or submitted their jurisdiction over the court then they cannot complain when a decision is decided against them. Supreme Court said the warranties or misrepresentations made brochures under condominium law, are part of the warranties, so failure to comply is now part of violations of the law . instead they wanted to be paid 20,000 , they are not liable to pay 500,000.00

Next case . De vera vs CA: Facts a bit complicated. Remember a condo developer as well as that of subdivision may not mortgaged property covered by their projects without approval of HLURB , here in this case approve, but de vera here bought a unit from QP San diego realty, with the assurance they pay the down payment, that a loan from pag-ibig be released, in the mean time they provided for a bridge financing a temporary financing while principal loan not released, here bridge financing have high interest bec no collaterals, here collateral is with the principal,

So there was a misunderstanding, within de vera , and QP and the 3 banks in bridge financing, De vera was default, until it was clear it was the failure of the owner to remit to the payments made by de vera, It is now the responsibility of the seller to deliver to DE vera even it was mortgaged, here De vera complied with his financial obligations, Even it had a clearance of the HLURB as to the mortgaged, here the seller is duty bound to deliver, covered by sec 25 of PD 957. The principle sec 25 of PD 957 the seller is duty bound to deliver even if it is mortgaged. A developer may not be mortaged its units without approval of the