Republic of the Philippines

Office of the President

HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD
Quezon City
Araceli Daria Sagario Abad,
Luther Bucud Alvarado,
Sps. Roel & Thelma Albero,
Mary Grace Aguas Alcano,
Arnel Robles Ang,
Ma.Crizelda D. Baltazar,
Rosalinda Filoteo Banluta,
Hermeo Gerona Bautista,
Ruther Duque Bautista,
Evelyn AlardeBauzon,
Renin Ty Belo,
Ferdinand M. Bolislis,
Raymond Reiner Salido Candari, represented by Ria Gizelle S. Candari
IsalynAltarejos Cantonjos,
Lizabeth Helican Cantos,
Benedick Mark N. Chan,
Johnny K. Chiu,
Stanley Sioco Chny,
Bernadette D. Chua,
RomelMangahas Correa,
RochelAnnalynPascual DeLa Cruz,
MarivicCajumbanDiala,
Genesis Pol T. Domingo,
Billy Jean Nuez Dugo,
Evelyn Y. Gan,
Maria Lourdes Paredes-Garcia
Flordeliza P. Geslani,
Jonathan David Teo Go,
Patrick Bonsol Gonzales,
Puno Bonsalagan Guiling, Jr.,
Melissa Ann E. Hipol,
Maria Victoria E. Hipol,
Yominda Y. Hui,
Juliet Macuto Padre Juan,
Sps. Arman &Renilda Soriano Layno,
Dianne Miles Flores Lim,
Kennedy Tan Lim,
Sps. Leonides& Genie B. De Lumen,
Sps. Bobby & Joanna Sinues Lopez,
Renato JestreManago,
Carmiluz Carlos Melo,
Sps. Rowena & Gilbert De Guzman Mercado,
Neena Aisha Kaw Go Del Mundo
John Minard Cualing Nieto,
Sps. Fernando & Merlyn Noble,
Grace W. Ong,
Sps. Angelo & Joanne Pabis,
Wendy Mendoza Petros,
Emeline D. Po/Brian Leemark Po,
Grace Facullo Quiones/Sherwin Quiones,

Page 02.
Florenda De Mesa Rieza/Winfred JapitanRieza / Wendy Ann De Mesa Rieza,
Editha ClaveriaRuallo / Romulo Rico Ruallo / Zarah Angelique Ruallo,
Dolores Santos Sangalang / Arnel Cabanding Sangalang,
Scigate Technology Corp. represented by: Donald G. Serafin
Richard So / Annalyn Chua So,
Alfonso AngSy JR.,
Ronald Tamayo / Jenifer Tamayo,
Jeffrey Dee Tan / Florice Mae Buencamino Tan,
Alexander Venzuela Tan,
Manuel Roman Tanpoco,
Susan Thai,
Johnny Choy Tiu / Evelyn Tiu,
TecsonUy(Xinghua Kang),
Dennis Velasco Villegas,
Victoria Enriquez Villena,
Sherlyn Glipo Viloria,
Audrey Miette Maymay Wong
Priscilla Policarpio Yap,
Henry Lim Yap,
Barry James See Yu,
Johnson Ho Yu
Rosalie Padilla Zamora,
Complainants,
- versus -

HLURB Case No. REM-111115-15838

For: Violation of Sec. 26 of PD 957, Unsound
Business Practices and Specific Performance
with application for Cease and Desist Order.

DMCI Project Developers, Inc.,

Represented by Mr. Alfredo R. Austria
Respondents.
X---------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM

Complainants, by counsel and unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully submit their
Memorandum in support of their application for Cease & Desist Order and state, viz:

PREFATORY STATEMENT
At the inception of this case, complainants seek the issuance of a Cease & Desist Order to
restrain respondent DMCI-Project Developers, Inc., hereto referred as DMCI for brevity from
pursuing their demands for reimbursement from each of the complainants referred above relative
to the real property taxes DMCI paid for the year 2015. The real property taxes pertain to their
condominium project herein known as Sorrel Residences, located in Sociego Street, Manila.

Page 03.
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS
On or about and prior to the filing of this complaint, DMCI sent individual notices and
demands to pay to the above-named complainants for reimbursement of the 2015 real property
tax, DMCI paid to the City of Manila. Each of the notices and demands to pay were personally
sent at their addresses with a corresponding amount charged to the individual unit owners.
Copies of the individual demand letters are appended as Annexes to the Complaint. For the
Honorable Arbiters appreciation, we have summarized the different amounts being charged to
each of the complainants named above, viz:
2015 Real Property Tax
Araceli Daria Sagario Abad,
Luther Bucud Alvarado,
Sps. Roel& Thelma Albero,
Mary Grace Aguas Alcano,
Arnel Robles Ang,
Ma.Crizelda D. Baltazar,
Rosalinda Filoteo Banluta,
Hermeo Gerona Bautista,
Ruther Duque Bautista,
Evelyn AlardeBauzon,
Renin Ty Belo,
Ferdinand M. Bolislis,
Raymond Reiner Salido Candari,
Isalyn Altarejos Cantonjos,
Lizabeth Helican Cantos,
Benedick Mark N. Chan,
Johnny K. Chiu,
Stanley SiocoChny,
Bernadette D. Chua,
Romel Mangahas Correa,
Rochel Annalyn P. DeLa Cruz,
Marivic Cajumban Diala,
Genesis Pol T. Domingo,
Billy Jean NuezDugo,
Evelyn Y. Gan,
Maria Lourdes Paredes-Garcia
Flordeliza P. Geslani,
Jonathan Teo Go,
Patrick Bonsol Gonzales,
Puno Bonsalagan Guiling, Jr.
Melissa Ann E. Hipol,

Unit

Parking

P 30,111.58
19,429.27
30,719.93
34,443.56
25,001.50
26,005.45
34,927.78
17,714.93

P7,704.91
P5,089.97

35,906.41
28,326.17
19,429.27
28,459.15
33,778.62
12,466.85
42,688.73
26,939.75
23,268.04
19,919.09
22,164.91

P5,875.12
P9,882.15
P7,310.06
P5,793.90
P6,876.87
P8,690.85
P6,606.13

27,429.56
24,951.34
22,857.97
29,225.54
10,367.72

P5,279.49

23,139.69
31,630.76
23,388.22
17,633.29

P4,710.93

Page 04.
Maria Victoria E. Hipol,
18,204.74
Yominda Y. Hui,
37,103.29
P8,299.89
Juliet Macuto Padre Juan,
20,163.99
Sps. Arman &Renilda Soriano Layno, 25,345.82
Dianne Miles Flores Lim,
29,116.15
Kennedy Tan Lim,
35,586.41
P7,472.51
Sps. Leonides& Genie B. De Lumen,29,240.58P6,362.46
Sps. Bobby & Joanna Sinues Lopez, 24,653.95
Renato Jestre Maago,
18,123.10
P6,010.59
Carmiluz Carlos Melo,
18,939.46
Sps. Rowena & Gilbert De Guzman Mercado,
36,581.83
P3,086.47
Neena Aisha Kaw Go Del Mundo
25,633.58
John Minard Cualing Nieto,
Sps. Fernando & Merlyn Noble,
34,839.84
P7,580.80
Grace W. Ong,
26,286.66
Sps. Angelo & Joanne Pabis,
22,776.33
Wendy Mendoza Petros,
22,939.60
Emeline D. Po/Brian Leemark Po,
37,826.11
P8,230.59
Grace FaculloQuiones/Sherwin Quiones, 22,53P

Florenda De Mesa Rieza/Winfred JapitanRieza / Wendy Ann De Mesa Rieza,

31,517.85
EdithaClaveriaRuallo / Romulo Rico Ruallo / Zarah Angelique Ruallo,
20,014.59
Dolores Santos Sangalang / ArnelCabandingSangalang,
31,231.42
P6,795.65
Scigate Technology Corp.
26,041.76
P12,049.40
Scigate Technology Corp.
39,692.53
Richard So / Annalyn Chua So,
37,768.22
Alfonso AngSy JR.,
29,789.02
P6,064.64
Ronald Tamayo / Jenifer Tamayo, 27,249.73
Jeffrey Dee Tan / Florice Mae Buencamino Tan,
P9,015.74
Alexander Venzuela Tan,
16,653.66
Manuel Roman Tanpoco,
21,751.39
P9,934.14
Susan Thai,
Johnny Choy Tiu / Evelyn Tiu,
35,241.48
TecsonUy (Xinghua Kang),
Dennis Velasco Villegas,
21,633.43
Victoria Enriquez Villena,
Sherlyn GlipoViloria
P32,182.78
P6,551.98
Audrey MietteMaymay Wong
13,811.72
Priscilla Policarpio Yap,
41,225.88
Henry Lim Yap,
25,507.74& 25,507.74 P5,550.23& P5,550.23
Barry James See Yu,
16,375.57
P4,358.96
Johnson Ho Yu
32,226.85
P7,012.24
Rosally Padilla Zamora,
14,390.65

In reference to the above, the contents of the letter sent to each complainant reads as
follows. For authenticity, we have reprinted in full, Exhibit A in the case of complainant,
Araceli Daria Sagario Abad. Thus, and we quote:

Page 5.
August 20, 2015
ARACELI DARIA SAGARIO ABAD
Amiel Moeing Sagraio Guiteng
3853 J. Escoda St., Santol, Sta. Mesa,
Manila
Philippines
To Our Valued Customer:
This is to bill you for the Real Property Tax/es for the purchase of Residential Condominium, 2Bedroom A (Inner Unit), SOR-00A-C-1704 at Sorrel Residences, advanced by Developer, DMCI
PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC, for the following years:
Detail
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------2015 RET Billing (Unit)
30,111.58
----------------------------------Amount Due Sub Total
30,111.58
TOTAL

30,111.58
-----------------------------------

As stated in the Supplement to Contract to sell, Section 9.2 and 9.2.1, the purchaser shall be
responsible in paying real property taxes from the date whichever is earlier of the actual
acceptance or deemed acceptance of unit/s and/or parking slot last May 4, 2015.
Please, pay the specified above amount on or before September 30, 2015 to avoid incurrence of
penalty. For Bank/Pag-ibig Financing accounts, kindly settle immediately to proceed on the
processing of drawdown/take out. Our Cashier is open from Monday to Wednesday from 9:00 am
to 5:00 pm, and Thursday to Friday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. Please present copy of this Statement
upon payment.
Please make check/s payable to

DMCI PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC

If you need clarifications and or copies of Official Receipts (ORS) as proof of payment made by
DMCI PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC, you may contact our Customer Care Department at (632)
555-7700 or email at customercare@dmcihomes.com.
Very truly yours,
Credit & Collection

For the record, the demand letter explicitly pertains to notice to pay for the 2015 real
property tax paid in advance by the respondent DMCI. It likewise made reference to the
addressees undertaking in the Contract To Sell whereby buyer has committed to pay real
property taxes from the date of acceptance, which in this case, is May 4, 2015. Lastly, the
demand to pay explicitly set as deadline, September 30, 2015, with a reminder to pay on or
before the due date to avoid incurrence of penalty. The clear import of the letter/demand is
failure to pay within the deadline imposed carries a sanction of imposition of penalties, which
most likely includes, interests and surcharges.

Page 06.

In the interim between the deadline imposed and the period before the filing of this
complaint, there were very strong oppositions from the above-named unit owners. Several
letters were sent to the respondents, but to no avail. Respondent DMCI refused to heed or settle
but insisted on an extension of deadline given to the complainants or up to November 30, 2015
and December 30, 2015 for the 2015 & 2016 tax payments to DMCI.

Another letter was sent to DMCI by the undersigned counsel, which contained an explicit
statement of complainants position that they should not be charged reimbursement for 2015 tax
in the light of the clear provision under Section 26 of PD 957, otherwise known as the
Condominium and Subdivision Buyers Protection Act. Unfortunately, this too, fell on deaf ears.

The hopeless situation constrained the above-named complainants to file the case before
the HLURB in view of the persistence of the respondent DMCI to charge each of the
complainants reimbursement on the 2015 paid in advance by DMCI to City Hall. Included
among the several causes of actions is the prayer for a Cease & Desist Order to restrain the
respondent from pursuing collection of reimbursement of the 2015 real property tax it paid.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

The lone question in this pending incident is whether or not a Cease & Desist Order to
restrain the respondent DMCI from collecting reimbursement for the 2015 real property tax it
paid is proper or justified.
ARGUMENTS
We submit that the issuance of a Cease & Desist Order is proper or justifiable and that
this Honorable Hearing Officer should issue the same against the respondent, DMCI, to protect
herein complainants.

Page 07.
Before we go into the meat of discussion, allow us to discuss in brief the propriety for the
issuance of a Cease and Desist Order. The pertinent provision is contained in the 2009 HLURB
Rules of Procedure, more specifically under Rule XI of the said Administrative Circular. We
quote the pertinent provision, as follows:
Rule XI Cease & Desist Order
Section 1. Cease and Desist Order. Upon filing of the complaint with
application for a cease and desist order, the Arbiter shall, upon hearing and with the
approval of the Regional Officer, transmit a copy of the records and submit a
recommendation on the grant or denial of the application to the Board of Commissioners
within five (5) days from the date of the last hearing..
Section 2. Grounds for the issuance of Cease and Desist Order. - The Board of
Commissioners shall resolve the application for cease and desist order. No cease and
desist order shall be issued unless it is established that:
A.
The applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of
such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of such act or acts,
either for a limited period or perpetually; or
B.
The commission or continuance of such act complained of during litigation,
would cause grave and irreparable injury to the applicant; or
C.
The adverse party is doing, threatening or is about to do, is procuring to be
done, some act probably in violation of existing laws and/or regulations being
implemented by this Board, or of applicants rights respecting the subject of the
action, tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

We shall now proceed with the discussion of the propriety of the issuance of the Cease &
Desist Order vis--vis the grounds set forth under the Rules.
The above-named complainants are entitled to the Cease & Desist Order which consists
in restraining the commission of such act or acts, which is the demand and ultimate collection for
the reimbursement to the respondent DMCI of the real property tax it paid for 2015. In other
words, the act/acts sought to be restrained is the collection of the 2015 real property tax as
reimbursement to DMCI.
The next logical question then would be why should the complainants not reimburse
respondent DMCI for the 2015 tax? The answer to this question is Section 26 of Republic Act
957, which is quoted hereunder:
Section 26. Realty Tax. Real estate tax and assessment on a lot or unit shall be paid by
the owner or developer without recourse to the buyer for as long as the title has not
passed the buyer; Provided, however, that if the buyer has actually taken possession of
and occupied the lot or unit, he shall be liable to the owner or developer for such tax and
assessment effective the year following such taking of possession and occupancy.

Page 08.
Section 26 is explicit on the injunction against the developer or owner from demanding
reimbursement to the buyer as long as the title has not passed to the buyer though the buyer has
already occupied or has taken possession of the unit or property. The buyer will only be liable to
pay his tax effective the year following such taking or possession and occupancy of the unit.

In the case of the above-named complainants, they have occupied or have taken
possession of their respective units this year 2015. None of them have been issued their
respective Condominium Certificate of Titles. Following the clear provision of Section 26,
complainants will only pay their assessments and real property taxes in the year 2016.

Unfortunately in the case at bar, respondent, by sending personal notices to the

complainants, has gone against the clear provision of Section 26 of RA 957. Worse, there is no
let up and the respondent DMCI is determined to exact reimbursements from each of the
complainants above for the 2015 real property tax it paid.

Why do we say that there is no indication that the respondent DMCI will renege on its
determination to charge and collect reimbursement from each of the complainants for the 2015
real property tax?

The ensuing events and the succeeding actions of the respondent DMCI unmistakably
indicate that it will definitely pursue collection and reimbursement of the 2015 RPT from the
individual unit owners.

First, it deliberately set aside the letters requesting for conference with the duly
authorized DMCI representatives, as well as the letter to cease and desist from collecting the
reimbursement of 2015 real property tax.
Second, by its own written admission, it has indicated therein that it will definitely pursue
claims for reimbursement.

Page 09
In its Answer to the complaint, it made reference to a certain Memorandum, which we
have herein reprinted for this Honorable Arbiters elucidation:

MEMO#

: C&C-15-10-064

TO

: SORREL UNIT OWNERS

THRU

: SORREL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OFFICE

FROM

: CREDIT & COLLECTION DEPARTMENT

DATE

: October 29, 2015

SUBJECT

: RPT BILLING: SORREL RESIDENCES

Please be informed that reassessment of SORREL Unit, Parking Slot and common area
tax declaration is currently in process with the Manila Assessors Office. Upon receipt of
final assessment, we shall be sending out updated RPT billings with new payment due
dates for the year 2016 and years 2015 and prior for our buyers reference.
(Underscoring, ours)
Rest assured that all concerned Departments are closedly monitoring the resolution of this
issue. Should you have concerns/inquiries, pls. contact Ms. Rege Gacho at 555-7777 loc.
7323 or send her an email at rggacho@dmcihomes. com.
Thank you,
(Signed)
Florence F. Ferrancullo
Credit & Collection Supervisor
Noted by:
(Signed)
Katherine M. Dacula
Credit & Collection Manager
(Signed
Evangeline H. Atchioco
VP, Finance
(Signed)
Joseph Ramil B. Lombos
SVP, Finance & Operations

Even a cursory reading of the Memorandum will readily reveal that the respondent DMCI will
demand for reimbursement of the 2015 tax. This is plain from the Memorandum itself. We do not need a
rocket scientist to discern the clear message of the Memorandum.

It will definitely pursue

reimbursement, despite the clear and mandatory provision of Section 26 of Republic Act 957.

Page 10.

We have already established that DMCI will demand and collect reimbursement for the 2015 real
property tax it paid. This is the clear and unmistakable message of the Memorandum. Res ipsa loguitor
the thing speaks for itself.

No other interpretation can be deduced from the explicit language of the

MemorandumDMCI will definitely collect 2015 tax!!!

Having established the certainty of the act/acts complained of, we now go into the discussion of
the second requisite, that is, the commission or continuance of such act complained of during litigation, would cause grave and irreparable injury to the applicant.

The impending act of collecting reimbursement of the 2015 real property tax urgently needs to be
restrained by this Honorable Office. From this set of complainants alone, the enormity of the tax
reimbursement would amount to a total amount of One Million Seven Hundred Forty Thousand, Nine
Hundred Six and Eighty Eight Centavos (P1,740,906.88).

There are 2nd and 3rd batches of

complainants in similar or substantially similar cases. If there are 400 residents of the condominium, a
rough estimate of the total 2015 tax alone will result to a staggering amount of 5 to 7 million pesos! The
non-issuance of a Cease & Desist Order will therefore result in grave and irreparable injury to the
complainants. The failure to restrain DMCI will only embolden it to demand and collect from the hapless
complainants, when they should not pay so. Complainants stand to lose millions of money for an
obligation that does not exist!

On the other side of the fence, DMCI stands to gain a whooping amount of 5 to 7 million from
complainants in uttere disregard for the clear mandate of the law. We are not only talking about unjust
enrichment, we are in effect talking about a flagrant and brazen violation of the law! Such should never
be countenanced.

We now go to the third requisite for the issuance of a Cease & Desist Order, that is, the adverse
party is doing, threatening or is about to do, is procuring to be done, some act probably in violation
of existing laws and/or regulations being implemented by this Board, or of applicants rights
respecting the subject of the action, tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

Page 11.
We have already discussed the latest memorandum of the respondent DMCI in support of
our contention that DMCI will surely demand reimbursement. Only a clear and unequivocal
pronouncement at this time would convince us and this Honorable Office that DMCI will
withdraw its resolve to demand and collect 2015 real property tax reimbursement. Absent any
express announcement that it will already forego collection of the 2015 taxes, our position is
clear; that is, the complainants will pursue the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order to
permanently restrain the respondent from collecting reimbursement of the 2015 real property tax
it paid.

Having established that the complainants are entitled to the issuance of the Cease &
Desist Order, we shall now delve on why this Honorable Arbiter and this Honorable Office
should issue the Order.

Aside from the fact that complainants are entitled to the cease & desist order as a matter
of right, this Honorable Office is mandated to see to it that the law is uphold and followed not
only in the spirit but in the letter.

The rationale or reason for Republic Act 957 is to curtail and curb the abuses committed
by the powerful and wealthy landowner/developers of subdivisions and condominiums to its
helpless and hapless buyers with limited resources. It seeks to protect the subdivision and
condominium buyers from unscrupulous developers.. The law seeks to strike a balance in the
glaring disparity between a cash-strap buyer and the wealthy developer, who with unlimited
resources and with the best battery of lawyers, can simply scrap or cancel a sale with one stroke
of a pen and leave the hapless buyer without recourse or protection. And to ensure protection to
the cash strapped buyer, the Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board is mandated to guarantee
protection to the buyers and the public in general. The HLURB therefore has the mandate to
protect the buyers and to make sure that the law is upheld and followed.

Page 12.
Section 26 of PD 957 is a protectionary measure designed to make certain that the buyer
during his first year of occupancy when he does not have title yet to his property will not be
obliged to pay real property taxes as this is a clear obligation of the owner/developer of the
property. This is protectionary measure is further designed to compel the owner/developer that
hasten the delivery of the title to its buyers. Only then, will the obligation to pay real property
tax may accrue.

Since Section 26 is a protectionary measure, it behooves upon this regulatory office to

make sure the law is upheld. Thus the need for the Cease & Desist Order. Without the Cease &
Desist Order, nothing will prevent or deter the respondent DMCI from proceeding with the
demand to pay and collecting the 2015 tax reimbursement.

The amount has become

inconsequential compared to the abusive disregard to the protectionary measure of the law.
More than an utter disregard for the law, it is more a blatant violation for the letter and spirit of
the law.

And to further bolster our legal arguments, we have attached hereto affidavits on a
question and answer format of some of our witnesses duly subscribed before this Hearing Arbiter
herein marked as Exhibits C, D, E & F. Be it remembered that in the filing of this
Complaint, all the complainants verified the complaints allegations. The attached affidavits
merely details in detail their particular situation vis a vis the demands made by respondent DMCI
to them.

Be it further remembered that each complainant has appended in the complaint the

notices personally sent to them by DMCI. Lastly, it must be underscored that while none of the
complainants personally received the Memorandum confirming that DMCI will proceed with the
reimbursement, this evidence coming precisely from them, supports the need for its issuance.

WHEREFORE premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Office that a Cease & Desist Order be issued against the respondent DMCI. Such other reliefs,
just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Page 13.

The Law Firm of

PADILLA VILLANUEVA ABUNO VIERNES GARCIA FESTIN ZAMBRANO
& Associates
Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA
Wheels Executive Suites Wheels Building
No. 222 E. Rodriguez Sr., Ave., Quezon City
PTR No. 3114149 January 7, 2015 Rizal
IBP No. 977084 January 7, 2015 Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance V No. -0001086 November 5, 2013
Tel. Nos. 416-3901; 09209053089
Copy Furnished by Registered Mail with Return Card:
Atty. Reynaldo A. San Gabriel
Saulog & De Leon Law Offices
Unit 1704 & 1705 88 Corporate Center
141 Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City

Explanation
A copy of this Memorandum is sent to adverse counsel in view of lack of manpower to
effect personal service.

Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA