“…this case should be an eye-opener for anybody who buys real estate, even from big developers like DMCI”
An aggrieved purchaser of one unit of DMCI’s housing projects sued DMCI, first before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), and later before the Office of the President.
Back in 2010, office worker Kimberly Mae Lee Maronilla and DMCI executed a contract to sell for the installment purchase of a house and lot at Mahogany Place III in Barangay Bambang, Taguig City which was developed and offered for sale to the public by DMCI. The contract price was P11,930,284.80.
In August 2010, Maronilla paid the initial reservation fee of P50,000.00, and issued 12 post-dated checks, each in the amount of P294,090.45, for the down payment. She also issued another 12 post-dated checks, each in the amount of P695,933.28, corresponding to 12 monthly amortizations.
Due to oversight, Maronilla’s check for August 15, 2012 bore a discrepancy between the indicated amount in figures (P695,933.28) and the amount in words (Six Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Three Pesos and Twenty-Eight Centavos), i.e., a discrepancy of just P1,000.00.
DMCI held on to that discrepant check and did not deposit it, but it proceeded to collect on the other checks paid by Maronilla.
All intents and purposes, DMCI was able to collect more than 94 percent of what Maronilla paid by way of her post-dated checks.
Those payments notwithstanding, DMCI sent Maronilla a letter dated November 8, 2013, which informed her of her alleged “unpaid amortization” but without any accompanying explanation.
Naturally, Maronilla refused to blindly pay the “unpaid amortization” alleged in the said letter.
DMCI finally informed Maronilla about the discrepant check in a letter sent to her by DMCI in January 2014.
On March 17, 2014, Maronilla offered to pay the outstanding obligation, but DMCI refused to accept her payment.
Surprisingly, DMCI sent Maronilla a notice of cancellation and/or rescission of the contract to sell, by way of its letter to Maronilla dated January 30, 2020.
Aggrieved, Maronilla challenged the legality of the action taken by DMCI in an administrative case she filed with the HLURB.
In its Decision dated November 21, 2015, the HLURB Expanded National Capital Region Field Office (ENCRFO) ruled in favor of Maronilla.
According to the HLURB-ENCRFO, the discrepancy in the subject check was obviously an oversight on the part of Maronilla.
It was also held that the contract to sell was not validly cancelled or rescinded because the notice of cancellation and/or rescission did not comply with the procedure mandated in Republic Act 6552, also known as the Maceda Law.
Thus, the HLURB-ENCRFO disallowed the cancellation of the contract to sell; ordered Maronilla to pay, but without interest, the remaining amount of P695,933.28 to DMCI; and directed DMCI to issue the corresponding deed of sale to Maronilla, and to pay
Maronilla moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00, and P50,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
DMCI appealed the ruling of the HLURB-ENCRFO to the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB.
In a Decision dated March 21, 2017, the Board affirmed the ruling of the HLURB-ENCRFO, but found Maronilla liable for penalties and interest for defaulting on her overdue account. The Board also deleted the award of damages.
Maronilla appealed the ruling of the HLURB Board to the Office of the President of the Philippines.
On June 10, 2022, then Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea rendered a Decision setting aside the ruling of the HLURB Board and reinstating the Decision of the HLURB-ENCRFO.
In ruling for Maronilla, Medialdea pointed out that DMCI’s decision to cancel the contract to sell was in violation of the procedure mandated under Republic Act 6552, and that DMCI failed to inform Maronilla of the reason for DMCI’s refusal to accept her offer to pay the remaining balance.
Medialdea also said, “… it would be against the principles of justice and equity if appellant Maronilla would be made liable to pay interest on the amortization payment covered by the Discrepant Check which was not deposited upon appellee DMCI’s own choice.”
Further, Medialdea stressed that, “… the totality of the acts of appellee DMCI in not depositing the Discrepant Check, in failing to inform appellant Maronilla regarding the same within a reasonable time, and the undue haste in effecting the cancellation of the contract despite willingness of the latter to settle her obligation and receipt by the former of more than 94 percent of the contract price show(s) bad faith or oppressive conduct on the part of appellee DMCI justifying the HLURB ENCRFO’s award of damages in favor of appellant Maronilla.”
Maronilla has already complied with the Decision of the Office of the President. DMCI, however, filed a motion for reconsideration.
According to Maronilla, this case should be an eye-opener for anybody who buys real estate, even from big developers like DMCI.