G.R. No. 139791. December 12, 2003.

* 455

MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation vs. Ng Kok Wei
EDDY NG KOK WEI, respondent.
decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and
Actions; Jurisdiction; Condominiums; Housing and Land Use attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse. Here, petitioner
Regulatory Board (HLURB); Complaints for specific performance failed to raise the question of jurisdiction before the trial court and
with damages by a lot or condominium unit buyer against the the Appellate Court. In effect, petitioner confirmed and ratified the
owner or developer falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court’s jurisdiction over this case. Certainly, it is now in
HLURB.—Pursuant to the above provisions, it is the HLURB which estoppel and can no longer question the trial court’s jurisdiction.
has jurisdiction over the instant case. We have consistently held
Same; Same; The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a petition for
that complaints for specific performance with damages by a lot or
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
condominium unit buyer against the owner or developer falls under
Procedure, as amended, is limited to reviewing only errors of law,
the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB.
not of fact, unless the factual findings being assailed are not
Same; Same; Same; Same; Estoppel; Where a party failed to raise supported by evidence on record or the impugned judgment is
the question of jurisdiction before the trial court and the appellate based on a misapprehension of facts.—On petitioner’s claim that it
court, it, in effect, confirmed and ratified the trial court’s did not incur delay, suffice it to say that this is a factual issue. Time
jurisdiction over the case and is now in estoppel and can no longer and again, we have ruled that “the factual findings of the trial court
question the trial court’s jurisdiction.—While it may be true that the are given weight when supported by substantial evidence and
trial court is without jurisdiction over the case, petitioner’s active carries more weight when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.”
participation in the proceedings estopped it from assailing such lack Whether or not petitioner incurred delay and thus, liable to pay
of it. We have held that it is an undesirable practice of a party damages as a result thereof, are indeed factual questions. The
participating in the proceedings and submitting its case for jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is limited
_______________
to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual
findings being assailed are not supported by evidence on record or
the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.
* THIRD DIVISION. These exceptions are not present here.
455 PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of
Appeals.

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 12, 2003

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Insurance Corporation, petitioner, expressed his intention to
purchase a condominium unit at Valle Verde Terraces.
Roy Enrico C. Santos for petitioner.
Subsequently or on December 5, 1988, respondent paid petitioner a
Rogelio Velarde for private respondent.
reservation fee of P50,000.00 for the purchase of a 46-square meter
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: condominium unit (Unit 703) valued at P860,922.00. On January 16,
1989, respondent paid 90% of the purchase price in the sum of
P729,830.00.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Consequently, petitioner, through its President, Mr. Antonio G.
Decision1 dated March 26, 1999 and Resolution2 dated August 5, Puyat, executed a Contract to Sell in favor of the respondent. The
1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 40504, entitled contract expressly states that the subject condominium unit “shall
“Eddy Ng Kok Wei vs. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation”. substantially be completed and delivered” to the respondent
The factual antecedents as borne by the records are: “within fifteen (15) months” from February 8, 1989 or on May 8,
1990, and that “(S)hould there be no substantial completion and
_______________ fail(ure) to deliver the unit on the date specified, a penalty of 1% of
the total amount paid (by respondent) shall be charged against
(petitioner)”.
1 Annex “A” of the Petition for Review, Rollo at 27-57.
Considering that the stipulated 15-month period was at hand,
2 Annex “C”, id., at pp. 63-65. respondent returned to the Philippines sometime in April, 1990.
456 In a letter dated April 5, 1990, petitioner, through its Senior
Assistant Vice-President, Mr. Mario G. Zavalla, informed respondent
of the substantial completion of his condominium unit, however,
456 due to various uncontrollable forces (such as coup d’etat attempts,
typhoon and steel and cement shortage), the final turnover is reset
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
to May 31, 1990.
Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation vs. Ng Kok Wei
Meanwhile, on July 5, 1990, upon receipt of petitioner’s notice of
Eddy Ng Kok Wei, respondent, is a Singaporean businessman who delivery dated May 31, 1990, respondent again flew back to Manila.
ventured into investing in the Philippines. On November 29, 1988, He found the unit still uninhabitable for lack of water and electric
respondent, in a Letter of Intent addressed to Manila Bankers Life facilities.
Once more, petitioner issued another notice to move-in addressed “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and
to its building administrator advising the latter that respondent is against defendant, ordering Manila Bankers Life Insurance
scheduled to move in on August 22, 1990. Corporation to pay plaintiff Eddy Ng Kok Wei the following:

On October 5, 1990, respondent returned to the Philippines only to 1. One percent (1 %) of the total amount plaintiff paid defendant;
find that his condominium unit was still unlivable. Exasperated, he
2. P100,000.00 as moral damages;
was constrained to send petitioner a letter dated November 21,
1990 demanding payment for the damages he sustained. But 3. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
petitioner ignored such demand, prompting respondent to file with
the 4. P25,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees; and

457 5. Cost of suit.

“SO ORDERED.”

VOL. 418, DECEMBER 12, 2003 On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated March 26,
1999, affirmed in toto the trial court’s award of damages in favor of
457 the respondent.
Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation vs. Ng Kok Wei Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was
denied by the Appellate Court in a Resolution dated August 5, 1999.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 150, Makati City, a complaint against
the former for specific performance and damages, docketed as Civil Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner contends
Case No. 90-3440. that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the instant case; and that
the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s finding that
Meanwhile, during the pendency of the case, respondent finally
petitioner incurred unreasonable delay in the delivery of the
accepted the condominium unit and on April 12, 1991, occupied the
condominium unit to respondent.
same. Thus, respondent’s cause of action has been limited to his
claim for damages. On petitioner’s contention that the trial court has no jurisdiction
over the instant case, Section 1 (c) of Presidential Decree No. 1344,
On December 18, 1992, the trial court rendered a Decision 3 finding
as amended, provides:
the petitioner liable for payment of damages due to the delay in the
performance of its obligation to the respondent. The dispositive _______________
portion reads:

3 Annex “H”, id. at pp. 83-89.

458 submitting its case for decision and then accepting the judgment,
only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when
adverse.6
458
_______________
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation vs. Ng Kok Wei

4 Jurisdiction was originally vested in the National Housing
“SECTION 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real Authority (NHA) under P.D. No. 957, as amended by P.D. No. 1344.
estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for Under E.O. No. 648 of February 7, 1981, this jurisdiction was
in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authoiity [now transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)]4 shall have (HSRC) which, pursuant to P.O. No. 90 of December 17, 1986, was
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following renamed as the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
nature:
5 See Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Payawal, G.R. No. 84811, August 29,
xxx 1989, 177 SCRA 72; C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. vs. Hibionada, G.R.
No. 80916, November 9, 1990, 191 SCRA 268; Tejada vs. Homestead
“C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and Property Corporation, G.R. No. 79622, September 29, 1989, 178
statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or SCRA 164; Alcasid vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94927, January 22,
condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or 1993, 217 SCRA 437; Fajardo vs. Bautista, G.R. Nos. 102193-97, May
salesman. 10, 1994, 232 SCRA 291.
x x x. 6 See Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. National Labor Relations
Pursuant to the above provisions, it is the HLURB which has Commission, et al., G.R. No. 118069, November 16, 1998, 298 SCRA
jurisdiction over the instant case. We have consistently held that 517; TCL Sales Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129777,
complaints for specific performance with damages by a lot or January 5, 2001, 349 SCRA 35; Alday vs. FGU Insurance Corporation,
condominium unit buyer against the owner or developer falls under G.R. No. 138822, January 23, 2001, 350 SCRA 113.
the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB.5 459
While it may be true that the trial court is without jurisdiction over
the case, petitioner’s active participation in the proceedings
estopped it from assailing such lack of it. We have held that it is an
undesirable practice of a party participating in the proceedings and
459
Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation vs. Ng Kok Wei Notes.—The exclusive jurisdiction of HLURB extends to the
determination of the question whether there is a perfected contract
Here, petitioner failed to raise the question of jurisdiction before
of sale between a condominium buyer and developer. (Rael vs.
the trial court and the Appellate Court. In effect, petitioner
Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 677 [1998])
confirmed and ratified the trial court’s jurisdiction over this case.
Certainly, it is now in estoppel and can no longer question the trial _______________
court’s jurisdiction.

On petitioner’s claim that it did not incur delay, suffice it to say that
7 Lim vs. Chan, G.R. No. 127227, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 55,
this is a factual issue. Time and again, we have ruled that “the
59, citing Valgoson’s Realty, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 449
factual findings of the trial court are given weight when supported
(1998).
by substantial evidence and carries more weight when affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.”7 Whether or not petitioner incurred delay 8 Cosmos Bottling Corporation vs. National Labor Relations
and thus, liable to pay damages as a result thereof, are indeed Commission, G.R. No. 146397, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 258, citing De
factual questions. Rama vs. Court of Appeals, 351 SCRA 94 (2001).
The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari 460
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is
limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual
findings being assailed are not supported by evidence on record or 460
the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.8
These exceptions are not present here. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official
March 26, 1999 and Resolution dated August 5, 1999 of the Court of Document Against Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer
Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO. One who acquires condominium units by way of assignment by the
Costs against the petitioner. condominium project owner in payment of its indebtedness for
contractor’s fee does so for valuable consideration, and is a buyer in
SO ORDERED. contemplation of P.D. 957. (AMA Computer College, Inc. vs. Factora,
Vitug (Chairman), Corona and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur. 378 SCRA 121 [2002])

Petition denied. ——o0o—— Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation vs. Ng Kok
Wei, 418 SCRA 454, G.R. No. 139791 December 12, 2003