If there is no demand there is no delay.

You cant be held liable to pay damages

DIBA?!
So if you are the seller be very careful and may be at that time Maceda Law is not
yet popular.
You cannot invoke Maceda Law every time. It can only be invoked once every five
years.
In Active Realty the contract to sell was for 4 years towards the end of the 4yr that
is when De Roya defaulted in payment of an installment. When she offered to pay
the entire unpaid balance, active refuse payment. Why? What active did? It sold the
same property to another buyer. Dba in a contract to sell the seller can still sell the
object to another buyer after all he is still the actual owner, and that sale is
perfectly valid. You cannot even question whether the buyer is in good faith or not.
Because we are not talking about double sales here, there was no previous sale.
What was entered into is a contract to sell. So active sold the property to another
buyer but was there a violation of maceda law here? De roya was not accorded the
right to pay in the grace period(change in to during-my opinion only) without
interest and also there was no notarial notice in the decision on the notarial demand
receipt. So the contract is still effective but the problem is if de roya would still be
allowed to pay the balance of the purchase price no property will be delivered to her
because it is already sold. So what is the equitable judgment of the court here?
Since active already sold the property, the equitable judgment of the court was for
active to return to de roya the amount she paid, the effect of cancellation is cash
surrender value. Since it is the fault of active it should have been required to return
the full amount paid by de roya but the court said no, thats inequitable. You must
deliver to de roya the full selling price of the property. When de roya entered the
contact to sell the selling price was 200k, and active sold the property for 875k,
this(875k) must be the amount that active must deliver to de roya. So if you are the
counsel for the developer, dont forget about this and if you are the counsel for the
buyer dont forget to invoke this. This kind of scenario happens many times.
Now lets go to PD 597. A developer of a subdivision or condominium project cannot,
even if it is the owner of the project cannot sell condominium unit or subdivision lot
without first securing a license to sell from HLURB not from DTI. What is the effect if
a developer starts to sell condo units without first securing a license from HLURB or
selling condo units without even starting to do the ground works, what is the effect
of the absence of license to sell to these contracts it has entered into with buyers?
Are the contracts affected by the lack of a license to sell? No the contracts are
perfectly valid. The developer who did not secure the license to sell will be subject
to administrative liability. Now it is also unlawful for an owner or developer to
mortgage the project without first securing a license from HLURB. What is the effect
of failure to secure the consent or permit of HLURB to mortgage? The mortgage will
be declared void and if it has mortgaged the property, it must inform the buyers of

the fact of mortgage because the buyers have the option to directly pay their
installments to the creditor or the lender and if they are fully paid of their units they
are entitled to the release of the titles to them. Why is this very important? Because
under the mortage law a mortgage which is an accessory contract is indivisible. The
indivisibility of the mortgage mandates that the entire mortgage no matter how
many properties are covered secure the payment of an entire obligation for as long
as the entire obligation is unpaid the mortgage as a whole exist, cannot be released
partially. The exception is here under PD 597 if a buyer who has fully paid for the
price to the creditor, because in a mortgage the title is usually delivered to the
creditor(usually banks) this is not required but for the security of the creditor so title
is delivered to the creditor then the creditor is obliged to release the title to the
buyer. Thats the exception to the indivisibility of a mortgage. If the owner or the
developer fails to develop the project according to the plan submitted to HLURB,
then the buyer is justified in suspending his payments if they see that the
development stopped or there is no progress as indicated in the project plan
submitted to HLURB. MONTERO(GAISANO) v. ADVIENTO(KING) but if you are the
buyer you cannot just stop payments, you must notify first your seller that you are
suspending the payments because of the failure of the developer. You can continue
paying payments once the developer continues. You cannot be penalized by
suspending payments if you are justified in doing so. The other remedy of the buyer
is to demand all the payments made not a cash surrender value. If a condo buyer
defaults on the payment of installments, is he covered by the maceda law? YES.
Also you might be justified in suspending payments because of the failure of the
owner or developer then you fail to notify the owner or developer of you suspending
payments then you can be held in default. And your remedy is maceda law. Marquez
case. Marquez a buyer of a townhouse where the entire housing project was
mortgaged by trans America. Trans America did not secure a license from HLURB
also did not notify the buyers the fact of mortgage. Marquez filed a nullification of
the mortagage. Earlier we said that failure to obtain license from HLURB will make
the mortgage void but the court did not totally void the mortgage. The court merely
declared the mortgage is void in so far as the lot purchased by Marquez was
concerned not the entire lot. What do you think? Nganong ky marquez ra man?
Because marquez is not a party in interest with respect to the other lots he is
interested only with respect to the townhouse he was purchasing. If all the other
buyers filed case then may be the entire mortgage will be declared void.