Maxima Realty Management and Development Corporation v Parkway Real Estate Development

Corporation (2004, Ynares-Santiago)

Facts:

Unit #702 of Heart Tower Condominium in Makati City is subject of this controversy. [Summary of this
controversy: DEFAULT IN PAYMENT FOR CONDO]
o Segovia Development Corporation (Segovia) sold it to Masahiko Morishita
o Masahiko Morishita sold and assigned all rights thereto in favor of Parkway Real Estate
Development Corporation (Parkway)
o Parkway and Maxima Realty and Development Corporation entered into an agreement to buy
and sell, on instalment basis for P3 million. Part of the stipulation included a default clause that
Maxima will forfeit amounts paid by way of liquidated damages in case of failure to pay.
o Maxima defaulted, and was able to pay P1.18 million because of grace periods. (Balance =
P1.82 million)
o On May 10, 1990, Parkway, with the consent of Segovia arranged for a Deed of Assignment
transferring all rights to the condominium in favour of Maxima so that Maxima has show
property to secure a loan with RCBC. Segovia and Maxima agreed also that the title will be
transferred under Maximas name for P58,114 as transfer fees, and other expenses.
o Maxima continued its default with Parkway and Segovia.
o Parkway cancelled its agreement to buy and sell with Maxima, as well as the Deed of
Assignment.
Maxima filed a case with the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs of the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for specific performance to enforce the agreement to buy and sell.
HLURB Arbiter sustained nullification.
[IMPORTANT FACTS:]
Maxima appealed to the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB (Board). At this level, Maxima agreed
to pay the outstanding balance but still failed to pay, and the appeal was again resolved in favour of
Parkway. Maxima received the decision on April 19, 1994.
On May 10, 1994, Maxima appealed the Boards decision to the Office of the President, which
dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time.
Maxima brought the decision to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the decision of the Office of
the President.

Issue:
Was the petitioners appeal before the Office of the President filed within the reglementary period?

Ruling:
NO. Following the doctrine laid out in SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office of the President, it resolved the
conflict between two rules.

15 of PD 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protection Degree) and 2 of PD 1344

(Empowering the National Hosing Authority to issue Writ of Execution in the Enforcement of its Decision
under PD No. 957), the period to appeal the decision of the Board of Commissioners of HLURB to the
Office of the President is fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed decision.

While the 1994 HLURB Rules of Procedure suggest a 30-day period of appeal under Section 27, the
same stipulation also provides for following Administrative Order No. 18 series of 1987, which starts
with Section 1. Unless otherwise governed by special laws, an appeal to the Office of the President
shall be taken within thirty (30) days from receipt by the aggrieved party of the decision/resolution/order
complained of or appealed from.
This Administrative Order qualifies such 30-day period, and because of the two PDs mentioned above
that falls squarely on the controversy (a sale of a condo), the 15-day period applies.
In fact, Sec. 27 of HLURB 1994 Rules of Procedure no longer holds true for being in conflict with the
provisions of the aforementioned presidential decrees. For it is axiomatic that administrative rules
derive their validity from the statute that they are intended to implement. Any rule which is not
consistent with [the] statute itself is null and void.
In the case at bar, the 15-day period applies, so if the adverse decision was received on April 19, 1994,
the appeal to the Office of the President should have been filed on May 4, 1994. May 10 was beyond the
reglementary period.