G.R. No.

129822 June 20, 2012

ORTIGAS & COMPANY V. CA
FACTS:
In 1994 respondent City of Pasig (the City) filed a complaint against rtigas and !reenhills Properties,
Inc" (!PI) for specific compliance #efore the $egional %rial Court ($%C) of Pasig in a ci&il case alleging
that Ortigas fail! to "o#$l% &it' M()i"i$al Or!i)a)" *+ Sris of 19,, -MO *. &'i"' r/(ir! it
to !sig)at a$$ro$riat r"ratio)al a)! $la%gro()! fa"ilitis at its former Capitol 'I (u#di&ision
(regarded as a residential site), no) the Pasig City side of the rtigas Center" *urther, the City alleged
that despite the fact that the plan )as only appro&ed #y the +unicipal Council as to layout, petitioner
proceeded to de&elop the property )ithout securing a final appro&al" In ans)er, rtigas alleged that its
de&elopment plan for the su#,ect land )as for a commercial su#di&ision, outside the scope of + - that
applied only to residential su#di&isions. that the City cannot assail the &alidity of that de&elopment plan
after its appro&al 2- years ago" Its de&elopment plan had #een appro&ed/ (1) #y the 0epartment of Justice
through the 1and $egistration Commission on June 12, 1929. (2) #y the +unicipal Council of Pasig
under $esolution 123 dated +ay 24, 1929. and (5) #y the Court of *irst Instance of $i6al, 7ranch 2- in
its rder dated July 11, 1929" rtigas further alleged that only in 1934, 1* %ars aftr t' a$$ro0al of
its $la)+ t'at t' Natio)al 1o(si)g Rg(lator% Co##issio) i#$os! t' o$) s$a" r/(ir#)t for
commercial su#di&isions through its $ules and $egulations for Commercial (u#di&ision and Commercial
(u#di&ision 0e&elopment" rtigas filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the $%C had no
,urisdiction o&er it, such ,urisdiction #eing in the 8ousing and 1and 9se $egulatory 7oard (819$7) for
unsound real estate #usiness practices" n :pril 1-, 1992 the RTC !)i! t' #otio) to !is#iss. It
'l! t'at 123R45s 6(ris!i"tio) $rtai)! to !is$(ts arisi)g fro# tra)sa"tio)s 7t&) 7(%rs+
sals#)+ a)! s(7!i0isio) a)! "o)!o#i)i(# !0lo$rs" rtigas filed a petition for certiorari #efore
the Court of :ppeals (C:) to challenge the $%C;s actions" n *e#ruary 13, 1994 the C: rendered
,udgment, affirming the $%C;s denial of the motion to dismiss" %he appellate court ruled that the City
sought compliance )ith a statutory o#ligation enacted <to promote the general )elfare ((ection 12, 1ocal
!o&ernment Code) )hich in&aria#ly includes the preser&ation of open spaces for recreational
purposes"= Si)" t' Cit% &as )ot a 7(%r or o) )titl! to rf()! for t' $ri" $ai! for a lot+ t'
!is$(t #(st fall ()!r t' 6(ris!i"tio) of t' RTC $(rs(a)t to S"tio) 19 of T' 8(!i"iar%
Rorga)i9atio) A"t of 198:"

I((9>/
?@A the ,urisdiction o&er the case against petitioner rtigas filed #y the City regarding nonBcompliance
)ith the +unicipal rdinance - )hich reCuired petitioner to designate appropriate recreational and
playground facilities, lies )ith the 819$7 and not )ith the $%C
8>10/
Ao, the ,urisdiction lies )ith the $%C" Aot e&ery case in&ol&ing #uyers and sellers of su#di&ision lots or
condominium units can #e filed )ith the 819$7" Its ,urisdiction is limited to those cases filed #y the
#uyer or o)ner of a su#di&ision lot or condominium unit and #ased on any of the causes of action
enumerated in (ection 1 of P"0" 1544"
rtigas maintains that the 819$7 has ,urisdiction o&er the complaint since a land de&eloperDs failure to
comply )ith its statutory o#ligation to pro&ide open spaces constitutes unsound real estate #usiness
practice that Presidential 0ecree (P"0") 1544 prohi#its" >Eecuti&e rder 243 empo)ers the 819$7 to
hear and decide claims of unsound real estate #usiness practices against land de&elopers" 9ltimately,
)hether or not the 819$7 has the authority to hear and decide a case is determined #y the nature of the
cause of action, the su#,ect matter or property in&ol&ed, and the parties" S"tio) 1 of P.;. 1<== 0sts i)
t' 123R4 t' >"l(si0 6(ris!i"tio) to 'ar a)! !"i! t' follo&i)g "ass/

(a) unsound real estate #usiness practices.

(#) claims in&ol&ing refund and any other claims filed #y su#di&ision lot or
condominium unit #uyer against the pro,ect o)ner, de&eloper, dealer, #roFer, or
salesman. and

(c) cases in&ol&ing specific performance of contractual and statutory
o#ligations filed #y #uyers of su#di&ision lots or condominium units against the o)ner,
de&eloper, dealer, #roFer or salesman"
9nliFe paragraphs (#) and (c) a#o&e, paragraph (a) does not state )hich party can file a claim
against an unsound real estate #usiness practice" 7ut, in the conteEt of the e&ident o#,ecti&e of
S"tio) 1+ it is i#$li"it t'at t' ?()so()! ral stat 7(si)ss $ra"ti"@ &o(l!+ liA t'
off)!! $art% i) $aragra$'s -7. a)! -".+ 7 t' 7(%rs of la)!s i)0ol0! i)
!0lo$#)t" %he policy of the la) is to cur# unscrupulous practices in real estate trade and
#usiness that pre,udice #uyers"
#&iously, the City had not #ought a lot in the su#,ect area from rtigas )hich )ould gi&e it a
right to seeF 819$7 inter&ention in enforcing a local ordinance that regulates the use of pri&ate
land )ithin its ,urisdiction in the interest of the general )elfare" It has the right to #ring such
Find of action #ut only #efore a court of general ,urisdiction such as the $%C"