8/30/2016

G.R.No.131903

TodayisTuesday,August30,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.131903June26,2008
OSCARR.BADILLO,GIOVANNIC.ONG,EDGARA.RAGASArepresentedbyheirsCYNTHIAG.RAGASA,
andtheirchildrenJOSEPH,CATHERINEandCHARMAINEallsurnamedRAGASA,ROLANDOSANCADA,
andDIONISIOUMBALIN,petitioners,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,REGISTEROFDEEDSOFQUEZONCITY,GOLDKEYDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,
JOSEFACONEJERO,IGNACIOD.SONORON,PEDRODELROSARIO,andDOWALREALTYAND
MANAGEMENTSYSTEMCOMPANY,respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
Thispetitionforcertiorari1assailsthe17September1997Decision2oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.
50035.TheCourtofAppealsdismissedtheappealfiledbypetitionersOscarR.Badillo,GiovanniC.Ong,Edgar
A.Ragasa,RolandoSancada,andDionisioUmbalin(petitioners)questioningthe5June1995Order3 of Branch
222 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q9110510 for Annulment of Documents with
PrayerforIssuanceofProhibitoryandMandatoryInjunctionandDamages.
TheFacts
PetitionersallegedthattheyaretheregisteredownersofseverallotsadjoiningaroadlotknownasLot369A29
or Apollo Street of subdivision plan Psd37971 (road lot). The road lot is a short access road which connects
petitionerspropertiestothemainroadknownasRoad20.TheroadlotiscoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle
(TCT) No. RT20895 (22682) and registered in the name of respondent Pedro del Rosario (del Rosario).
AnnotatedatthebackofTCTNo.RT20895isacourtorderedEntryNo.605/T22655whichreadsasfollows:"It
isherebymadeofrecordthatasperorderoftheCourt,thestreetlotcoveredbythistitleshallnotbeclosedor
disposedofbytheregisteredownerwithoutpreviousapprovalofthecourt."4
Petitionersallegedthatingrossviolationofthecourtorder,delRosariosoldanunsegregatedportionoftheroad
lottohiscorespondentsJosefaConejero(Conejero)andIgnacioSonoron(Sonoron)withoutobtainingpriorcourt
approval.DelRosario,Conejero,andSonoronthenenteredintoapartitionagreementtodividetheroadlotinto
fourlotswhichresultedinthepartialcancellationofTCTNo.RT20895andthesubsequentissuanceofTCTNos.
35899and35100inthenameofConejero,TCTNo.35101inthenameofdelRosario,andTCTNo.35102inthe
nameofSonoron.5
PetitionersstatedthatdelRosariosoldTCTNo.35101toGoldkeyDevelopmentCorporation(Goldkey).6
PetitionersallegedthattheRegisterofDeedsviolatedthecourtorderwhenitallowedtheregistrationofthesales
andthesubsequentissuanceofnewtitleswithoutfirstobtainingjudicialapproval.PetitionersclaimedthatGoldkey
hadbuiltcementfencesonthelot,thusblockingtheingressandegressofpetitioners.7
PetitionersprayedthatthesalesmadeinfavorofConejero,Sonoron,andGoldkeyandthepartitionoftheroad
lotbedeclaredvoid.8
In its Comment, Goldkey alleged that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has exclusive
jurisdictionoverthecasesmentionedinSection1ofPresidentialDecreeNo.(PD)1344.9Goldkeyarguedthatthe
CourtofAppealscorrectlydismissedpetitionersappealbecausepetitionersmerelyassignedanerrorinvolvinga
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/gr_131903_2008.html

1/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.131903

purequestionoflaw.Goldkeyaddedthatpetitionersareusingthepresentpetitionasasubstituteforanalready
lostappealsincepetitionerscounselhadreceivedthedecisionon17October1997andthepresentpetitionwas
postedonlyon16December1997.10
InMay1991,petitionersfiledaninitialcomplaintwiththeOfficeoftheBuildingOfficial(buildingofficial)ofQuezon
City, docketed as Building Case No. R1091006 entitled Giovanni C. Ong, et al. v. Manuel Chua (building
case).11 Petitioners, who initiated the building case when Goldkey started putting up fences in some portions of
theproperty,claimedthattheparceloflandwasaroadlot.12
On10September1991,theHLURBissuedaDevelopmentPermittoGoldkeyallowingittodevelopthelandinto
residential townhouse units. The permit also mentioned that the project is classified as "Residential Townhouse
Subdivision"and,asevaluated,thesameis"inaccordancewiththeZoningOrdinanceofQuezonCity."13
On 4 November 1991,14 petitioners filed a case for Annulment of Title and Damages15 with the Regional Trial
CourtofQuezonCity.
Subsequently,thebuildingofficialofQuezonCityresolvedthebuildingcaseagainstpetitionersandthisdecision
becamefinalandexecutory.16Therulingheldthatthepropertyisnotaroadlotbutaresidentiallot.17
On5June1995,Branch222oftheRegionalTrialCourt(trialcourt)ofQuezonCityissuedanorderdismissingthe
caseforlackofjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.
TheRulingoftheTrialCourt
Thetrialcourtdismissedpetitionerscaseforlackofjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.Thetrialcourtpointedout
that there was a decision rendered by the building official of Quezon City declaring the disputed property a
residential lot and not a road lot hence, the building official issued a building permit. The HLURB also issued a
permitforthedevelopmentofthelandintoatownhouseproject.Petitionersdidnotappealbothrulings.Thetrial
courtstatedthatpetitionerscontentionthatthepropertyisaroadlothadbeenrenderedmootbythefindingof
thebuildingofficialwhichmadethecontrarydeclaration.Ifpetitionershadanyobjectiontotheruling,theyshould
haveappealedthesametotheSecretaryofPublicWorksandHighwaysasprovidedinSection307ofExecutive
Order No. (EO) 1096. The findings of administrative agencies which have expertise are generally accorded not
onlyrespectbutevenfinality.
ThetrialcourtalsostatedthatthepropertyhadbeenapprovedbytheHLURBfordevelopmentintoatownhouse
project.Thesubjectlandwasthereforeremovedfromthejurisdictionoftheregularcourts.TheHLURBsdecision
wasalsonotappealedtotheOfficeofthePresidentasprovidedinSection4ofPD1344whichgavetheHLURB
quasijudicialpowers.
TheRulingoftheAppellateCourt
On 17 September 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to
entertainthesame.Theappellatecourtstatedthattheoriginalandamendedcomplaintsfiledbypetitionerswere
bothpremisedontheclaimthatthesubjectparcelsoflandweresubdivisionroadlotsthatwereillegallyconverted
into residential lots and thereafter disposed by del Rosario, the subdivision developer. Therefore, petitioners
complaintswerefiledforthepurposeofenforcingacontractualandstatutoryobligationofdelRosariotopreserve
a subdivision road lot for street purposes. As such, the agency with jurisdiction is the HLURB, pursuant to the
provisionsofPD957,1216,and1344,EO648dated7February1981andEO90dated17December1986.
Further,theappellatecourtruledthattheerrorassignedbypetitionersinvolvestheissueonwhatlawwillapplyto
determine the jurisdiction of a tribunal over the subject matter of the complaints. Petitioners assigned error
involvesapurequestionoflawhence,petitionersappealedtothewrongforum.Petitionersshouldhaveelevated
theirappealtotheSupremeCourtandnottotheCourtofAppealsbywayofasimpleappeal.
Hence,thispetition.
TheIssues
Petitionersraisethreeissuesinthispetition:
1.Whethertheappellatecourtactedwithoutorinexcessofjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretionby
dismissingpetitionersappealonthegroundthatjurisdictiondoesnotliewiththeregularcourtsbutwiththe
HLURB
2.WhethertheCourtofAppealsactedwithoutorinexcessofjurisdictionorgraveabuseofdiscretionby
dismissingpetitionersappealonthegroundthatpetitionersdidnotassignanyerroroffactand
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/gr_131903_2008.html

2/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.131903

3.WhetherapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureistheproperremedy
forpetitioners.
TheRulingoftheCourt
Thepetitionlacksmerit.
TheHLURBisthesoleregulatorybodyforhousingandlanddevelopment.18Theextenttowhichanadministrative
agencymayexerciseitspowersdependsontheprovisionsofthestatutecreatingsuchagency.19Courtswillnot
determineacontroversywheretheissuesforresolutiondemandtheexerciseofsoundadministrativediscretion.20
JurisdictionLieswiththeHLURB
PD 957,21 otherwise known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree," granted the
NationalHousingAuthority(NHA)theexclusivejurisdictiontoregulatetherealestatebusiness.Thescopeofthe
regulatoryauthoritylodgedintheNHAisindicatedinthesecondwhereasclausewhichstates:
"WHEREAS, numerous reports reveal that many real estate subdivision owners, developers, operators,
and/or sellers have reneged on their representations and obligations to provide and maintain
properlysubdivisionroads,drainage,sewerage,watersystems,lightingsystems,andothersimilarbasic
requirements,thusendangeringthehealthandsafetyofhomeandlotbuyers,"(Emphasissupplied)
Thus,Section22ofPD957provides:
Sec.22.AlterationofPlans.Noownerordevelopershallchangeoraltertheroads,openspaces,
infrastructures, facilities for public use and/or other form of subdivision development as contained in the
approved subdivision plan and/or represented in its advertisements, without the permission of the
Authorityandthewrittenconformityorconsentofthedulyorganizedhomeownersassociation,
orintheabsenceofthelatter,bythemajorityofthelotbuyersinthesubdivision.(Emphasissupplied)
PD 134422 amended PD 957 by empowering the NHA to issue writs of execution in the enforcement of its
decisions.Section1ofPD1344states:
Section 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its
powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive
jurisdictiontohearanddecidecasesofthefollowingnature:
a.Unsoundrealestatebusinesspractices
b.Claimsinvolvingrefundandanyotherclaimsfiledbysubdivisionlotorcondominiumunitbuyeragainst
theprojectowner,developer,dealer,brokerorsalesmanand
c.Casesinvolvingspecificperformanceofcontractualandstatutoryobligationsfiledbybuyers
ofsubdivisionlotorcondominiumunitagainsttheowner,developer,dealer,brokerorsalesman.
(Emphasissupplied)
UnderEO648,23theNHAsfunctionsweretransferredtotheHumanSettlementRegulatoryCommission.Section8
ofEO648provides:
Section8.TransferofFunctions.TheregulatoryfunctionsoftheNationalHousingAuthoritypursuantto
PresidentialDecreesNo.957,1216,1344andotherrelatedlawsareherebytransferredtotheCommission,
togetherwithsuchapplicablepersonnel,appropriation,records,equipmentandpropertynecessaryforthe
enforcementandimplementationofsuchfunctions.Amongtheseregulatoryfunctionsare:(1)Regulationof
the real estate trade and business (2) Registration of subdivision lots and condominium projects (3)
Issuance of license to sell subdivision lots and condominium units in the registered units (4) Approval of
performancebondandthesuspensionoflicensetosell(5)Registrationofdealers,brokersandsalesmen
engagedinthebusinessofsellingsubdivisionlotsorcondominiumunits(6)Revocationofregistrationof
dealers,brokersandsalesmen(7)Approvalormortgageonanysubdivisionlotorcondominiumunitmade
bytheownerordeveloper(8)Grantingofpermitsforthealterationofplansandtheextensionofperiodfor
completionofsubdivisionorcondominiumprojects(9)Approvaloftheconversiontootherpurposes
ofroadsandopenspacesfoundwithintheprojectwhichhavebeendonatedtothecityormunicipality
concerned (10) Regulation of the relationship between lessors and lessees and (11) Hear and decide
cases on unsound real estate business practices claims involving refund filed against project owners,
developers,dealers,brokersorsalesmenandcasesofspecificperformance.(Emphasissupplied)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/gr_131903_2008.html

3/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.131903

EO9024 renamed the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
TheHLURBretainedtheregulatoryandadjudicatoryfunctionsoftheNHA.
Clearly,thescopeandlimitationoftheHLURBsjurisdictionarewelldefined.TheHLURBsjurisdictiontohearand
decidecasesisdeterminedbythenatureofthecauseofaction,thesubjectmatterorpropertyinvolved,andthe
parties.25Inthepresentcase,petitionersaretheregisteredownersofseverallotsadjoiningasubdivisionroadlot
connectingtheirpropertiestothemainroad.Petitionersallegethatthesubdivisionlotownerssoldtheroadlotto
a developer who is now constructing cement fences, thus blocking the passageway from their lots to the main
road.Insum,petitionersareenforcingtheirstatutoryandcontractualrightsagainstthesubdivisionowners.Thisis
aspecificperformancecasewhichfallsundertheHLURBsexclusivejurisdiction.
InOsea v. Ambrosio,26 the Court held that the provisions of PD 957 were intended to encompass all questions
relatingtosubdivisions.Thisintentionwasaimedtoprovideforanappropriategovernmentagency,whichisthe
HLURB, to which all parties aggrieved in the implementation of provisions and the enforcement of contractual
rightswithrespecttosaidcategoryofrealestatemaytakerecourse.
Petitioners claim that respondents violated the annotation at the back of TCT No. RT20895 by selling an
unsegregatedportionofthelotwithoutobtainingpriorcourtapproval.Thedateofentryofthisannotationis18
August 1953. When PD 957, PD 1344, and EO 648 were enacted in 1976, 1978, and 1981, respectively, this
annotationwasimpliedlymodifiedsuchthattheconversionoftheroadlotinthesubdivisionplanwouldfallunder
theHLURBsjurisdictionpursuanttotheselaws.
Petitioners argue that they can file a specific performance case to compel respondents to comply with their
contractual and statutory obligation to maintain the road lot. However, petitioners can only be granted complete
relief if the subject sales are declared void and the subsequent partition is declared illegal. Petitioners further
contend that the HLURB, having only the jurisdiction to hear and decide specific performance cases, can only
compelpetitionerstofileacaseforannulmentoftitleandprosecutetheaction.Petitionersinsistthatinthefinal
analysis,acaseforannulmentoftitlewouldstillhavetobefiledwiththeordinarycourts.27
InPea v. GSIS,28 the Court ruled that when an administrative agency is conferred quasijudicial functions, all
controversies relating to the subject matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within its
jurisdiction.Splitjurisdictionisnotfavored.
AsobservedinC.T.TorresEnterprises,Inc.v.Hibionada:29
The argument that only courts of justice can adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of the Civil
Code is out of step with the fastchanging times. There are hundreds of administrative bodies now
performingthisfunctionbyvirtueofavalidauthorizationfromthelegislature.Thisquasijudicialfunction,as
itiscalled,isexercisedbythemasanincidentoftheprincipalpowerentrustedtothemofregulatingcertain
activitiesfallingundertheirparticularexpertise.
In the Solid Homes case for example the Court affirmed the competence of the Housing and Land Use
RegulatoryBoardtoawarddamagesalthoughthisisanessentiallyjudicialpowerexercisableordinarilyonly
bythecourtsofjustice.Thisdeparturefromthetraditionalallocationofgovernmentalpowersisjustifiedby
expediency,ortheneedofthegovernmenttorespondswiftlyandcompetentlytothepressingproblemsof
themodernworld.
Finally,inCristobalv.CourtofAppeals,30weheldthat"questionsrelatingtononcompliancewiththerequisitesfor
conversionofsubdivisionlotsareproperlycognizablebytheNHA,nowtheHLURB,pursuanttoSection22ofPD
957andnotbytheregularcourts."
AppealbyCertiorariInvolvingQuestionsofLaw
Section2,Rule41oftheRulesofCourtstates:
Sec.2.Modeofappeal.
(a)OrdinaryAppeal.TheappealtotheCourtofAppealsincasesdecidedbytheRegionalTrialCourtin
the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which
renderedthejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfromandservingacopythereofupontheadverseparty.No
record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate
appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and
servedinlikemanner.
(b)PetitionforReview.TheappealtotheCourtofAppealsincasesdecidedbytheRegionalTrialCourt
intheexerciseofitsappellatejurisdictionshallbebypetitionforreviewinaccordancewithRule42.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/gr_131903_2008.html

4/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.131903

(c)Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the
appealshallbetotheSupremeCourtbypetitionforreviewoncertiorariinaccordancewithRule
45.(Emphasissupplied)
InSevilleno v. Carilo,31 citing Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court
summarizedtheruleonappeals:
(1) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, appeal may be made to the
CourtofAppealsbymerenoticeofappealwheretheappellantraisesquestionsoffactormixedquestions
offactandlaw
(2)InallcasesdecidedbytheRTCintheexerciseofitsoriginaljurisdictionwheretheappellant
raises only questions of law, the appeal must be taken to the Supreme Court on a petition for
reviewoncertiorariunderRule45.
(3)AllappealsfromjudgmentsrenderedbytheRTCintheexerciseofitsappellatejurisdiction,regardless
ofwhethertheappellantraisesquestionsoffact,questionsoflaw,ormixedquestionsoffactandlaw,shall
bebroughttotheCourtofAppealsbyfilingapetitionforreviewunderRule42.(Emphasissupplied)
InFirstBancorp,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,32thisCourtalsoexplainedthetwomodesofappealfromafinalorderof
thetrialcourtintheexerciseofitsoriginaljurisdiction:
(1)bywritoferrorunderSection2(a),Rule41oftheRulesofCourtifquestionsoffactorquestionsoffact
andlawareraisedorinvolvedor
(2)appealbycertiorariunderSection2(c),Rule41,inrelationtoRule45,whereonlyquestions
oflawareraisedorinvolved.(Emphasissupplied)
In the present case, petitioners raised only one issue in their Appellants Brief whether "the Honorable Trial
Courtaquoseriouslyerredinholdingthatithasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthecasewheninfactit
hasalreadyacquiredjurisdictionoverthepersonsofthedefendantsandthesubjectmatterofthecase."
Thequestiononjurisdictionisundoubtedlyoneoflaw.Wehaveheldthat"aquestionoflawexistswhenthedoubt
orcontroversyconcernsthecorrectapplicationoflaworjurisprudencetoacertainsetoffactsorwhentheissue
doesnotcallforanexaminationoftheprobativevalueoftheevidencepresented,thetruthorfalsehoodoffacts
beingadmitted."33 Consequently, it is not disputed that the issue brought by petitioners to the Court of Appeals
involvessolelythetrialcourtsjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthecase.Theappellatecourtcandetermine
theissueraisedwithoutreviewingorevaluatingtheevidence.
Aspetitionersappealsolelyinvolvesaquestionoflaw,theappellatecourtdidnoterrindismissingtheappealon
thegroundoflackofjurisdictionpursuanttoSection2,Rule50oftheRulesofCourtwhichprovides:
Sec.2.Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals.An appeal under Rule 41 taken from
theRegionalTrialCourttotheCourtofAppealsraisingonlyquestionsoflawshallbedismissed,
issuespurelyoflawnotbeingreviewablebysaidcourt.Similarly,anappealbynoticeofappealinsteadof
bypetitionforreviewfromtheappellatejudgmentofaRegionalTrialCourtshallbedismissed.
AnappealerroneouslytakentotheCourtofAppealsshallnotbetransferredtotheappropriatecourtbut
shallbedismissedoutright.(Emphasissupplied)
Rule65isnotaremedyforlostappeal.
Petitioners should have directly taken their appeal to this Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule45andnotanordinaryappealwiththeCourtofAppealsunderRule41norapetitionforcertiorariwiththis
CourtunderRule65.
AsheldinBalayanv.Acorda,34"thespecialcivilactionforcertiorariisalimitedformofreviewandisaremedyof
lastrecourse."Itliesonlywherethereisnoappealorplain,speedy,andadequateremedyintheordinarycourse
oflaw.
Inthepresentcase,petitionerschosethewrongmodeofappeal.Hence,theinstantpetitioncannotprevailsincea
petitionforcertiorariisnotasubstituteforalostappeal,especiallyifthelossorlapsewasanerrorinpetitioners
choiceofremedy.WehaveheldinDavidv.Cordova35that:
A petition for certiorari cannot be a substitute for an appeal from a lower court decision. Where appeal is
available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will not be entertained. The remedies of appeal
(including petitions for review) and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternate or successive. Hence,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/gr_131903_2008.html

5/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.131903

certiorariisnotandcannotbeasubstituteforanappeal,especiallyifonesownnegligenceor
errorinoneschoiceofremedyoccasionedsuchlossorlapse.Oneoftherequisitesofcertiorariis
thattherebenoavailableappealoranyplain,speedyandadequateremedy.Whereanappealisavailable,
certiorariwillnotprosper,evenifthegroundthereforeisgraveabuseofdiscretion.(Emphasissupplied)
TherewereinstanceswhentheCourthasrelaxedtheruleonthespecialcivilactionforcertiorariasasubstitute
forfailuretofileatimelypetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45suchaswheretheapplicationofthisrule
would result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice.36 Although the Court has the discretion to treat a
petitionforcertiorariashavingbeenfiledunderRule45,thereisnothinginthepresentcasetowarrantaliberal
applicationoftherules.
WHEREFORE,weDISMISSthepetition.WeAFFIRMthe17September1997DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeen
reachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1UnderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
2Rollo,pp.2844.PennedbyAssociateJusticeCoronaIbaySomera,andconcurredinbyAssociate

JusticesAntonioM.MartinezandRomeoA.Brawner.
3Id.at2526.PennedbyJudgeEudarlioB.Valencia.
4Id.at78.
5Id.at89.
6Id.
7Id.at9.
8Id.at19.
9Id.at146.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/gr_131903_2008.html

6/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.131903

10Id.at147.
11Id.at29.
12Id.at82and336.
13Id.at336337.
14Id.at10.
15Id.at16.
16Id.at30.
17Id.at337.
18Teoticov.Baer,G.R.No.147464,8June2006,490SCRA279.
19Oseav.Ambrosio,G.R.No.162774,7April2006,486SCRA599.
20Id.
21Thelawbecameeffectiveon12July1976.
22Thelawbecameeffectiveon2April1978.
23Itisotherwiseknownas"CharteroftheHumanSettlementsRegulatoryCommission."Thelawbecame

effectiveon7February1981.
24Thelawbecameeffectiveon17December1986.
25DelosSantosv.Sarmiento,G.R.No.154877,27March2007,519SCRA62,73.
26G.R.No.162774,7April2006,486SCRA599,607.
27Rollo,pp.1617.
28G.R.No.159520,19September2006,502SCRA383,402.
29G.R.No.80916,9November1990,191SCRA268,272273.
30G.R.No.125339,22June1998,291SCRA122,132.
31G.R.No.146454,14September2007,533SCRA385,388.
32G.R.No.151132,22June2006,492SCRA221,235.
33BukidnonDoctorsHospital,Inc.v.MetropolitanBank&TrustCo.,G.R.No.161882,8July2005,463

SCRA222,233.
34G.R.No.153537,5May2006,489SCRA637,641.
35G.R.No.152992,28July2005,464SCRA384,394395.
36VMCRuralElectricServiceCooperative,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.153144,16October2006,

504SCRA336,353.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/gr_131903_2008.html

7/7