0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
331 vues2 pages
This case involves a dispute between Ortigas & Company and the City of Pasig over Ortigas' alleged failure to comply with a municipal ordinance requiring it to designate recreational and playground facilities on its property. Ortigas argues the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has jurisdiction, not the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction lies with the RTC, not the HLURB. It explained that the HLURB's jurisdiction is limited to cases filed by buyers/owners of subdivision lots or condominium units involving refunds, specific performance, or unsound real estate practices against developers/sellers. Since the City is not a buyer of Ortigas' property,
This case involves a dispute between Ortigas & Company and the City of Pasig over Ortigas' alleged failure to comply with a municipal ordinance requiring it to designate recreational and playground facilities on its property. Ortigas argues the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has jurisdiction, not the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction lies with the RTC, not the HLURB. It explained that the HLURB's jurisdiction is limited to cases filed by buyers/owners of subdivision lots or condominium units involving refunds, specific performance, or unsound real estate practices against developers/sellers. Since the City is not a buyer of Ortigas' property,
This case involves a dispute between Ortigas & Company and the City of Pasig over Ortigas' alleged failure to comply with a municipal ordinance requiring it to designate recreational and playground facilities on its property. Ortigas argues the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has jurisdiction, not the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction lies with the RTC, not the HLURB. It explained that the HLURB's jurisdiction is limited to cases filed by buyers/owners of subdivision lots or condominium units involving refunds, specific performance, or unsound real estate practices against developers/sellers. Since the City is not a buyer of Ortigas' property,
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"