Republic of the Philippines

Office of the President

HOUSING AND LAND REGULATORY BOARD
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Kalayaan Avenue Corner Mayaman Street, Diliman, Quezon City
THIRD DIVISION
SPS. DEMOSTHENES GULOY
And PAZ A. GULOY,
Complainants,
-Versus-

HLURB CASE NO. REM-A-141209-02183

ZOOMARK RPC INC.,

THE MANGO ORCHARD RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STA.
LUCIA REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. and
FIL-ESTATE REALTY SALES ASSOCIATES,
FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC.,
Respondents,
X-------------------------------------------------------X

Members:
Salazar,
Paredes, and
Malenad-Hornilla
PROMULGATED:

DECISION
Before us is the appeal filed by the Respondent from the Decision rendered by HLURB
Arbiter Atty. Raymundo A. Foronda of the HLURB Expanded National Capital Regional Filed
Office, dated 22 October 2014. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgement is rendered as follows:
1. Declaring the Contract to Sell Between the parties over Phase 1, Lot no. 28,
Block 40 of the Caliraya Lake Ridge Resort & Residences with one Marine Share,
as cancelled;
2. Ordering respondents Zoomark, Mango Orchard and Sta. Lucia to jointly and
severally refund to complainants the amount of Php1,151,733.29 with legal
interest of 6% per annum from the filing until finality of the decision and 12%
interest from finality until full payment;
3. Ordering respondents Zoomark, Mango Orchard and Sta. Lucia to pay
complainants moral damages in the amount of Php20,000.00;
4. Ordering respondents Zoomark, Mango Orchard and Sta. Lucia to pay
complainants Php30,000.00 as attorneys fees and costs of suit;
Dismissing the complaint against respondents Fil-Estate.
SO ORDERED.

Complainants alleged that in 21 April 1999, they entered into a contract to sell with
respondent Zoomark RPC Incorporated (Zoomark) for the purchase of Phase 1, lot no.28, Block
40 of the Caliraya Lake Ridge Resort & Residences with one Marina Share, for and in
consideration of the sum of Php965,800.00 with the amount of Php289,740 as down payment
HLURB REM-A-141209-02183 Sps. Demosthenes & Paz Guloy vs. Zoomark RPC, Inc., ET AL. Page 1 of 5

while the balance shall be paid on a monthly amortization of Php18,287.42 for five (5) years.
They learned of the said property through a sales agent of Fil-Estate Realty Associates and FilEstate Properties, Inc. (Fil-Estate) in a sales promotion at SM Megamall and that the developer
is the respondent Mango Orchard Resource Development Corporation (Mango Orchard) and
Sta. Lucia Realty Development Inc. (Sta. Lucia); that the project will be completed in five (5)
years from 1998.
After having paid the down payment, complainants have fully paid the purchase price on
5 June 2000, as evidenced by an official receipt 1 issued by Mango Orchard.
That on 4 July 2000, complainants received a letter from respondent Fil-Estate
informing them that an application of extension of time to develop the project was filed the
HLURB. That complainants made repeated follow ups with the respondents since 2005. That
sometime in 2008, complainants sent a demand letter 2 to Zoomark for the refund of the amount
they paid amounting to Php1,151,733.29. Zoomark, in their reply letter, referred the
complainants to respondent Mango Orchard as assignee of the share of Zoomark. That in 2011,
complainants personally visited respondents Zoomark and Mango Orchards office in Makati,
however they were informed by the Building Administrator that the respondents indeed occupy
the said units but do not have regular office hours. They decided to leave letters 3 for both
respondents to the building administrator. That in 30 March 2011, complainants through their
counsel, sent demand letters to respondents, to which respondents failed and refused to heed to
the complainants demand.
This prompted the complainants to file the instant case.
Respondents Fil-Estate in their answer, argue that complainants have no cause of action
against them since they were only acting as agents to the transaction, thus it is not a party to the
contract between complainants and Zoomark. Fil-Estate prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint and for the payment of damages as counterclaim.
1 Annex D of the Complaint
2 Annex G of the Complaint
3 Annex H and I of the Complaint
HLURB REM-A-141209-02183 Sps. Demosthenes & Paz Guloy vs. Zoomark RPC, Inc., ET AL. Page 2 of 5

Respondents Sta. Lucia on the other hand averred as special and affirmative defense that
it entered into a joint venture agreement 4 (JVA) with respondent Zoomark, for the development
of the Caliraya Lake Ridge. That under the JVA, the lot which the complainants bought is part
of the Zoomark share. That there is no privity of contract between them and complainants and
have not received as single centavo from the transaction. Sta. Lucia prays for the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of cause of action and for the payment of damages as counterclaim.
Respondents Zoomark and Mango Orchard did not file any answer.
The Expanded National Capital Regional Filed Office(Office) ruled in favour of the
complainants finding that respondent Sta. Lucia as the developer and joint venture partner and
respondents Zoomark and Mango Orchard as owners and joint venture partner failed to
complete the development of Caliraya Lake Ridge Resort & Residences within five(5) years from
1998 as represented to the complainants. The Office held that Section 20 5 in relation to Section
236 of PD 957 expressly provides for the period a developer is required to finish the project once
it is issued a license to sell and the remedies available to its buyers in the event it fails to comply
with its legal and contractual obligations. Hence, the complainants are granted the right to ask
for the rescission of their contract and reimbursement of all their payments. The office likewise
ruled that complainants are entitled to costs of suit, due to the unjustified failure and refusal of
respondents to heed complainants just and valid demand for a refund, which constrained them
to file the complaint thereby incurring expenses for litigation and costs of suits. On the part of
respondents Fil-Estate, the Office found that it is not a party to the contract between the

4 Annex 1 of the Answer

5

Section 20. Time of Completion. Every owner or developer shall construct and provide the facilities, improvements,
infrastructures and other forms of development, including water supply and lighting facilities, which are offered and indicated in the
approved subdivision or condominium plans, brochures, prospectus, printed matters, letters or in any form of advertisement, within
one year from the date of the issuance of the license for the subdivision or condominium project or such other period of time as may
be fixed by the Authority.

6 Section 23. Non-Forfeiture of Payments. No installment payment made by a buyer in a subdivision or condominium project for
the lot or unit he contracted to buy shall be forfeited in favor of the owner or developer when the buyer, after due notice to the owner
or developer, desists from further payment due to the failure of the owner or developer to develop the subdivision or condominium
project according to the approved plans and within the time limit for complying with the same. Such buyer may, at his option, be
reimbursed the total amount paid including amortization interests but excluding delinquency interests, with interest thereon at the
legal rate.

HLURB REM-A-141209-02183 Sps. Demosthenes & Paz Guloy vs. Zoomark RPC, Inc., ET AL. Page 3 of 5

complainants and respondent Zoomark, thus there was no basis to hold respondent Fil-Estate
liable to the complainants.
Not content with the decision, respondent Sta. Lucia appealed from the decision,
substantially reiterating its defences.
The appeal should be dismissed.
The decision appealed from awards a money judgment. Thus, the respondents should
have posted an appeal bond as provided for in Section 51(i), Rule 14 of the 2011 Revised Rules of
Procedure of this Board provides:
Section 51. Contents of Appeal Memorandum(i) Appeal Bond In case of money judgment, an appeal bond in cash or
managers check posted with the Board or surety bond in accordance with the
succeeding section, equivalent to the amount of the award and actual damages,
excluding interests, other damages, and attorneys fees.

Accordingly, the respondents appeal should be dismissed. Section 56(f) of Rule 15 of the
2011 Revised Rules of Procedure of this Board provides:
Section 56. Dismissal of the Appeal The Appeal shall be dismissed on any of the
following grounds:
(f) Failure to post appeal bond;

The Court held in Dimarucot v. People of the Philippines7 that:

The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is
merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in accordance with the
law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements
of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.

7 G.R. No. 183975, September 20, 2010, 630 SCRA 659

HLURB REM-A-141209-02183 Sps. Demosthenes & Paz Guloy vs. Zoomark RPC, Inc., ET AL. Page 4 of 5

Strict compliance with the Rules of Court is indispensable for the orderly and
speedy disposition of justice. The Rules must be followed, otherwise, they will
become meaningless and useless.

Moreover, a perusal of the substantive aspect of the respondents appeal and found
nothing therein that would warrant the relaxation of the Rules.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED and the decision of
the Expanded National Capital Regional Filed Office is hereby AFFRIMED.
SO OREDERED.
Quezon City, ________________________.

JOSE VICENTE B. SALAZAR

Undersecreatry, DOJ
And Ex-officio Commissioner

LUIS LAVAREZ PAREDES

Commissioner

LINDA L. MALENAB-HORNILLA
Commissioner

HLURB REM-A-141209-02183 Sps. Demosthenes & Paz Guloy vs. Zoomark RPC, Inc., ET AL. Page 5 of 5