Republic of the Philippines

Office of the President

HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD
HLURB Office, National Housing Authority Compound
Kalayaan Avenue cor. Mayaman Street, Diliman, Quezon City

C E L I A E. L E U T E R I O,
Complainant-Appellee,

-versus- HLURB Case No. REM 091203-12439

AIC MANAGEMENT & MARKETING

CORPORATION,
Respondent-Appellant.
x-----------------------------------------x

OPPOSITION
COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE CELIA E. LEUTERIO, represented by the

undersigned Law Offices, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully submits the

instant pleading and in support thereof avers: That--

The Reservation Agreement dated 28 June 1995, taken

in conjunction with the other documentary evidences,

inter alia, show a valid, binding and enforceable

contract.

-------------------------------------------------

1. The main argument in the Petition for Review dated 03 March 2004

posited by respondent-appellant is the alleged absence of a contract between herein

parties as shown by the Reservation Agreement of 28 June 1995 which was allegedly not

signed by any of its representative. Accordingly, under the principle of relativity, the said

agreement could not be enforced upon respondent-appellant. Of course, the said argument

is flawed in the context of the instant case.

1
 2. Well-settled is the rule that “[O]nce there is concurrence between the

offer and acceptance upon the subject matter, consideration, and terms of payment a

contract is produced.” (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. Court of Appeals;

301 SCRA 572) As borne by the records, there is no doubt of the existence of a valid and

enforceable contract between herein parties.

3. It can be seen in said reservation agreement that a representative of

respondent-appellant signed for and on behalf of the latter beside the name of Val John E.

Perez, Vice-President for Finance of respondent, and on each and every page thereof.

4. A further perusal of the said reservation agreement and the Certification

dated 23 May 2002 (Cf: Annex “F” of Complainant’s Position Paper dated 24

November 2003) readily shows that respondent-appellant sold to complainant-appellee

one (1) condominium unit at AIC Empire Tower (Unit 1601) and two (2) parking slots

(Basement 06, Slot No. 52 & 53). It also shows that as early as 30 August 2000

complainant-appellee paid in installment a total amount of PESOS: NINE MILLION

FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY

TWO & 66/100 (PhP9,574,132.66).

5. Applying the rule, herein parties concurred on the subject matter,

consideration and mode of payment agreed upon in the contract. On the part of

complainant-appellee, she has fully complied with what was incumbent upon her.

Unfortunately, respondent-appellant miserably failed to perform its part of the bargain,

thereby violating the contract and causing damage to complainant-appellee.

6. Other than the two (2) documents mentioned, the subsequent documents

executed after the perfection of the said reservation agreement prove with certainty the

existence of the valid and binding contract. These documents are evidence of the

2
subsequent acts that should be taken into consideration in the determination of the

existence of a valid and binding agreement between herein parties.

7. To protect and enforce her right in the said agreement, complainant-

appellee wrote and sent to respondent-appellant the Letter dated 28 April 1999 and Letter

received on 28 February 2002 (Cf: Annexes “B” and “D” of Complainant’s Position

Paper dated 24 November 2003). On the other hand, respondent-appellant’s answered

through Letter dated 16 August 2000, Letter dated 30 May 2002, and Letter of 10 July

2003 (Cf: Annexes “C, “E”” and “I” of Complainant’s Position Paper dated 24

November 2003).

8. In view of the foregoing, the claim of an unenforceable contract has no

basis in law and in fact.

Rescission is a remedy in case of violation of the terms

of the contract.

-------------------------------------------------

9. Respondent-appellant’s claim of legal impossibility to rescind a non-existing contract

virtually stands in an erroneous premise. On the contrary, there is a valid and enforceable contract that

complainant-appellee chose to rescind and claimed for reimbursement because of gross and substantial

violations perpetrated by respondent-appellant.

Complainant is entitled to be reimbursed of all

payments she made, plus interests, pursuant to
Section 23 of P. D. 957.
-------------------------------------------------

10. Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 957, otherwise known as "The

Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree", mandates:

3
 "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 interest with interest thereon at the
legal rate."

11. The afore-quoted provision is clear and casts no doubt for ambiguous

interpretation. After due notice, the condominium unit buyer may desist from remitting

further payments to the owner or developer for failure of the latter to develop the

condominium project according to the approved plans and within the time limit for

complying with the same. The buyer, at his option, may ask for a reimbursement for all

payments made with legal interest.

12. Applying the afore-quoted provision, complainant-appellee has more

reason to demand a return of all payments she made considering that she had already

paid, in full, the purchase price of the condominium unit and parking slots. Complainant-

appellee waited for more than eight (8) agonizing years for respondent-appellant to

deliver what was agreed upon. In fact, she made several requests for an update of the

status of the condominium project because she noticed that no major development had

been introduced therein since she signed the said reservation agreement. (Cf: Annexes

“D” and “E” of Complainant’s Position Paper dated 24 November 2000)

13. As held in the case of Casa Filipina Realty Corporation vs. Office of

the President (241 SCRA 165; February 7, 1995), "private respondents' refusal to

continue paying the amortization is thus based on two principal grounds: non-

development of the subdivision and encumbrance of the property subject of the sale

4
which became apparent to the buyer only after conducting his own investigation. As

such, the case falls squarely within the purview of both Secs. 23 and 24 of P. D. 957."

14. It is also clear form the words of Section 23 of P. D. No. 957, that the law

vests upon the buyer the option to demand reimbursement of the total amount paid or to

wait for further development of the subdivision or unit (Relucio vs. Brillante-Garfin,

187 SCRA 405; July 13, 1990)

15. The law explicitly provides that the reason why P. D. 957 was enacted is

precisely for the protection of the buyers from "fraudulent manipulations perpetrated by

unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and operators…" (P. D. No. 957;

Casa Filipina Realty Corporation case, supra). Hence, without a doubt, complainant-

appellee is entitled to be protected under this law as her case falls squarely within the

ambit of P. D. No. 957.

Complainant is entitled to damages, attorney's fees and

cost of the suit.

-------------------------------------------------

16. An assiduous examination of the facts of the case will readily show that

respondent-appellant incurred delay in the performance of its contractual obligation for

its failure to construct, complete and deliver the condominium project. Thus,

complainant-appellee is not only entitled to a refund of all payments she made, but she is

also entitled to indemnity for the damages she suffered as well.

17. The law expressly provides that "those who in the performance of their

obligation are guilty of fraud or delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor

thereof, are liable for damages" (Article 1170 of the Civil Code; Barzaga vs. Court of

Appeals, 268 SCRA 105)

5
 18. It is worth stressing that complainant-appellee was able to comply with

what was incumbent upon her, i. e., payment of the purchase price. Respondent-appellant,

on the other hand, has the concomitant obligation to start developing and constructing the

condominium project, and deliver the condominium unit agreed upon within the

stipulated period.

19. However, several years had passed and no progress can be seen on the

project site because the condominium project remained undeveloped. As held in the case

of Gutierez Hermanos vs. Oria Hermanos (30 Phil. 491), "if one party performs, and

the other does not, the latter would be in default." The act of the respondent-appellant in

abandoning the condominium project is a clear case of non-performance of its reciprocal

obligation.

20. In reciprocal obligations, as in the instant case, default on the part of one

begins from the moment the other party fulfills with what is incumbent upon him

(Causing vs. Benser, 37 Phil. 417). Since the respondent-appellant failed to comply with

its obligation, complainant-appellee has every right to exercise her option to rescind her

contractual ties with the former.

21. In addition to the delay incurred by the respondent-appellant, complainant-

appellee is likewise entitled to be indemnified for the damages she suffered in view of all

the unnecessary anxieties and inconveniences she has to go through as a result of the

unwarranted acts of the former. She parted away more than nine (9) million pesos of

hard-earned money without an inkling that respondent-appellant has no intention of

fulfilling its undertaking.

22. Further, "a debtor who incurs delay or default is liable for damages plus

interest, generally from extra-judicial or judicial demand in the form of interest"

6
(Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 59919, November 25,

1986).

Complainant is entitled to attorney's fees and

cost of the suit.
-------------------------------------------------

23. Attorney's fees may be granted based on the grounds enumerated under

Article 2208 of the Civil Code, thus:

"Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation,

attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than
judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

"x x x x

(2) Where the defendant's act or omission has

compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to
incur expenses to protect his interest;
"x x x x

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and

evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's
plainly valid, just and demandable claim;

x x x x"

24. In the instant case, complainant-appellee was forced to engage the services

of the undersigned Law Offices to seek redress and protect her interest. She has to go

through the tedious process of lodging a complaint just to enforce her rightful claims.

More so, it was quite clear that respondent-appellant acted in gross and evident bad faith

in its continued and unjustified refusal to satisfy complainant-appellee's valid, just and

demandable claims.

25. With the foregoing, complainant-appellee should and ought to be paid by

respondent-appellant for all legal and litigation expenses the former incurred in lodging

the instant complaint.

7
 PRAYER

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

Honorable Board that respondent-appellant’s Petition for Review dated 03 March 2004 be

DISMISSED for UTTER LACK OF MERIT.

OTHER RELIEFS, just and equitable under the foregoing premises, are likewise

most respectfully prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Quezon City, 15 April 2004.

SOLIVEN CASTILLO AND ESCOBEDO

Law Offices

Unit 404 Tower A, The Regalia Park Towers

150 P. Tuazon Blvd., Araneta Center
Cubao, Quezon City

ALEXIS M. ESCOBEDO
Roll of Attorney No. 46807
PTR No.: 50460816: 13.01.04: Q.C.
IBP No.: 007082: 13.01.04: Sorsogon

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ROMMEL J. DE LEON

Counsel for Respondent-Appellant
16th Floor, AIC Center
202 Escolta, Manila City
Metro Manila

EXPLANATION

Respondent’s counsel was furnished a copy of this Opposition via registered mail
due to lack of personnel to effectuate the preferred mode of service.

ALEXIS M. ESCOBEDO