FIRST DIVISION law. 7 The CA's ruling lapsed into finality.

8
Thereafter, Perfecto instituted a complaint before the HLURB claiming
[G.R. No. 231290. August 27, 2020.] that Lisondra Land committed unsound real estate business practices.
Allegedly, Lisondra Land expanded the business transactions outside the
PERFECTO VELASQUEZ, JR., petitioner, vs. LISONDRA LAND, authorized project site and sold memorial lots without the required permit
INCORPORATED, Represented by EDWIN L. LISONDRA, and license. Also, Lisondra Land failed to develop the project following the
respondent. approved plan and mandated period. 9 On July 20, 2007, the HLURB Arbiter
ruled in favor of Perfecto and found that Lisondra Land violated the joint
venture agreement. Thus, it rescinded the contract between the parties,
DECISION transferred the project management to Perfecto, and ordered Lisondra Land
to pay fines, damages and attorney's fees: 10
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
LOPEZ, J : p
rendered:
The jurisdiction of a quasi-judicial agency and the operation of the 1) Declaring the JVA of the parties as rescinded with the
principle of estoppel are the core issues in this petition for review on parties to render an accounting of all their expenses and incomes,
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals' with the proper restitution if warranted.
(CA) Decision 1 dated December 28, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 131359, which 2) Ordering the respondent to transfer the management of
set aside the Office of the President's Decision dated August 1, 2013. cSEDTC
the subject memorial park covering Lot 1680-A, including Lot 1680-B
ANTECEDENTS to the complainant;
3) Ordering the respondent to pay [complainant]
In 1998, Perfecto Velasquez, Jr. and Lisondra Land, Incorporated
P100,000.00 as attorney['s] fee, P200,000.00 as moral damages,
entered into a joint venture agreement to develop a 7,200-square meter P200,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay complainant the cost
parcel of land into a memorial park. 2 However, Lisondra Land did not secure of suit; and
the required permit from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
4) Ordering the respondent to pay a fine of P10,000.00 for
(HLURB) within a reasonable time which delayed the project construction.
its unauthorized land development and P10,000.00 for every
Moreover, Lisondra Land failed to provide the memorial park with the individual sale it executed without the requisite license to sell.
necessary insurance coverage and to pay its share in the realty taxes.
Worse, Perfecto learned that Lisondra Land collected kickbacks from agents IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

and gave away lots in exchange for the services of the engineers, architects, Lisondra Land appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners. 12 In its
construction managers and suppliers, contrary to the commitment to finance Decision dated January 15, 2009, the HLURB Board dismissed the case for
the project using its own funds. Thus, Perfecto filed against Lisondra Land a lack of jurisdiction. It ratiocinated that the RTC have the exclusive authority
complaint for breach of contract before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to decide the case because the dispute is between joint venture partners and
docketed as Civil Case No. 18146. 3 is an intra-corporate controversy. 13 Perfecto moved for reconsideration. AIDSTE

Lisondra Land sought to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. It On January 21, 2010, the HLURB Board granted the motion and
claimed that the supposed violations involved real estate trade and business reversed its earlier decision. It denied Lisondra Land's appeal and affirmed
practices which are within the HLURB's exclusive authority. 4 Yet, the RTC the findings of the HLURB Arbiter with modifications as to the amount of
ruled that it is competent to decide the case. 5 Dissatisfied, Lisondra Land damages and attorney's fees: 14
elevated the matter to the CA through a special civil action for certiorari WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED and
under Rule 65 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 72463. the decision of the Legal Services Group is AFFIRMED, except that the
In its Decision dated November 25, 2003, the CA granted the petition award of moral damages is reduced to P50,000.00; exemplary
and ordered to dismiss Civil Case No. 18146. It held that the RTC committed damages to P50,000.00; and attorney's fees to [P]30,000.00.
grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the complaint and In all other respects, the decision is AFFIRMED.
explained that Lisondra Land's alleged acts constitute unsound real estate SO ORDERED. 15
business practices falling under the HLURB's jurisdiction as provided in
Dissatisfied, Lisondra Land brought the case to the Office of the
Section 1 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1344. 6 Further, the RTC's theory
President (OP). In its Decision dated August 1, 2013, the OP denied the
that it can hear and decide the case simply because the action is not
appeal and affirmed the HLURB Board's resolution. 16 Aggrieved, Lisondra
between buyers and developers of land would limit the application of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Land filed a petition for review to the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 131359 Commission to HLURB. 27
on the ground that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of Notably, the cases before the HLURB must involve a subdivision
the case. project, 28 subdivision lot, 29 condominium project 30 or condominium unit.
On December 28, 2016, the CA found merit in the petition and set 31 Otherwise, the HLURB has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. 32

aside the OP's decision. It dismissed Perfecto's complaint clarifying that the Similarly, the HLURB's jurisdiction is limited to those cases filed by the buyer
HLURB's authority is limited only to cases filed by the buyers or owners of or owner of a subdivision or condominium and based on any of the causes of
subdivision lots and condominium units. 17 Perfecto sought reconsideration action enumerated under Section 1 of PD No. 1344. 33 The following cases
18 but was denied. 19 Hence, this petition. are instructive. SDAaTC

Perfecto argued that Lisondra Land is now estopped from assailing the In Solid Homes, Inc. v. Teresita Payawal , 34 the private respondent filed
HLURB's jurisdiction. It is not allowed to make a complete mockery of the a complaint against the petitioner before the RTC for failure to deliver the
judicial system resulting in two conflicting appellate court Decisions. 20 corresponding certificate of title over a subdivision lot despite payment of
Meantime, Perfecto informed this Court that Lisondra Land had surrendered the purchase price and for mortgaging the property in bad faith to a
the property and he is now in full control of developing the project. Yet, he financing company. After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of the private
submits the case for resolution in view of the novel issue raised in his respondent. However, the Supreme Court nullified the RTC's decision and
petition. 21 On the other hand, Lisondra Land maintained that Perfecto is not held that the NHA is vested with the "exclusive jurisdiction" over an action
a real estate buyer and his action must be filed before a court of general between a subdivision developer and its buyer. Moreover, it added that a
jurisdiction. 22 decision rendered without jurisdiction may be assailed any time unless the
RULING party raising it is already barred by estoppel, thus:
The applicable law is PD No. 957, as amended by PD No. 1344,
The petition is meritorious.
entitled "Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue Writs of
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority to hear, try, and Execution in the Enforcement of Its Decisions under Presidential
decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have Decree No. 957." Section 1 of the latter decree provides as follows:
authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction SECTION 1. In the exercise of its function to regulate the
over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided
matter is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority
all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the
a court or tribunal has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power following nature:
it has is to dismiss the action. 23 Here, we find it necessary to discuss first A. Unsound real estate business practices;
the HLURB's jurisdiction. B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by
The jurisdiction of the HLURB to subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the
hear and decide cases is determined project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
by the nature of the cause of action, C. C a s e s involving specific performance of contractual
the subject matter or property statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or
involved and the parties. condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman.
The scope and limitation of the HLURB's jurisdiction is well-defined. Its
precursor, the National Housing Authority (NHA), was vested under PD No. The language of this section, especially the italicized
portions, leaves no room for doubt that "exclusive
957 with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business.
24 Thereafter, the NHA's jurisdiction was expanded under Section 1 of PD No.
jurisdiction" over the case between the petitioner and the
private respondent is vested not in the Regional Trial Court
1344 to include adjudication of the following cases: (a) unsound real but in the National Housing Authority.
estate business practices; (b) claims involving refund and any other
xxx xxx xxx
claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and (c) cases involving It is settled that any decision rendered without
specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any
of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, broker time, even on appeal before this Court. The only exception is
where the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel, which
or salesman. 25 In 1981, Executive Order (EO) No. 648 transferred the
does not appear in the case before us. On the contrary, the issue
regulatory and quasi-judicial functions of the NHA to Human Settlements
was raised as early as in the motion to dismiss filed in the trial court
Regulatory Commission. 26 In 1986, EO No. 90 changed the name of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 by the petitioner, which continued to plead it in its answer and, later, private land within its jurisdiction in the interest of the general
on appeal to the respondent court. We have no choice, therefore, welfare. It has the right to bring such kind of action but only
notwithstanding the delay this decision will entail, to nullify the before a court of general jurisdiction such as the RTC.
proceedings in the trial court for lack of jurisdiction. (Emphases (Emphases Ours.)
Supplied.)
Here, it is undisputed that Perfecto is a business partner of Lisondra
Similarly, Peña v. Government Service Insurance System 35 declared Land and is not a buyer of land involved in development. Applying the above
that HLURB has jurisdiction over a complaint filed by a buyer against a case doctrines, Perfecto has no personality to sue Lisondra Land for unsound
subdivision developer and its mortgagee although the action involved title or real estate business practices before the HLURB. The regular courts have
possession in the real estate, viz.: authority to decide their dispute. Nonetheless, we hold that Lisondra Land is
When an administrative agency or body is conferred quasi- already estopped from questioning the HLURB's jurisdiction. AaCTcI

judicial functions, all controversies relating to the subject matter Lisondra Land cannot assume a
pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within the theory different from its position in
jurisdiction of said administrative agency or body. Split jurisdiction is
Civil Case No. 18146, CA-G.R. SP
not favored. Therefore, the Complaint for Specific Performance,
Annulment of Mortgage, and Damages filed by petitioner
No. 72463 and the HLURB.
against respondent, though involving title to, possession of, The notion that the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be waived by
or interest in real estate, was well within the jurisdiction of estoppel on the party invoking it most prominently emerged in Tijam v.
the HLURB for it involves a claim against the subdivision Sibonghanoy 37 where the Supreme Court held that a party cannot invoke
developer, Queen's Row Subdivision, Inc., as well as the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent
respondent.
and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
Later, Ortigas & Co., Ltd. Partnership v. Court of Appeals 36 interpreted same jurisdiction, to wit:
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1344 with respect to the HLURB's power to hear and
The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety
decide complaints for unsound real estate business practices against land became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the
developers. We ruled that the offended party in such kind of action are question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of
buyers of lands involved in development. Otherwise, the complaint must be Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of
filed before a court of general jurisdiction, to wit: money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within
Section 1 of P.D. 1344 vests in the HLURB the exclusive jurisdiction to the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so.
hear and decide the following cases: Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as
well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said
(a) unsound real estate business practices; courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a
(b) claims involving refund and any other claims filed by final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally
owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman; and woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to
sanction such conduct on its part, We would in effect be declaring as
(c) cases involving specific performance of contractual and useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was
statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to
condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker go up their alvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this
or salesman. is not only patent but revolting.
Unlike paragraphs (b) and (c) above, paragraph (a) does not Thereafter, there are divergent jurisprudential doctrines touching the
state which party can file a claim against an unsound real estate
issue of jurisdiction by estoppel. The cases of Spouses Martinez v. De la
business practice. But, in the context of the evident objective of
Section 1, it is implicit that the "unsound real estate business Merced, 38 Marquez v. Secretary of Labor, 39 Ducat v. Court of Appeals, 40
practice" would, like the offended party in paragraphs (b) and Bayoca v. Nogales, 41 Spouses Jimenez v. Patricia, Inc. , 42 and Centeno v.
(c), be the buyers of lands involved in development. The policy Centeno 43 all adhered to the doctrine that a party's active participation in
of the law is to curb unscrupulous practices in real estate trade and the actual proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will bar him from
business that prejudice buyers. assailing such lack of jurisdiction.
xxx xxx xxx In Martinez, the private respondents had several opportunities to raise
Obviously, the City had not bought a lot in the subject the question of lack of preliminary conference but they did not raise or even
area from Ortigas which would give it a right to seek HLURB hint this issue amounting to a waiver of the irregularity of the proceedings.
intervention in enforcing a local ordinance that regulates the use of We ruled that while lack of jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 party's active participation in the proceedings before a court without petitioners argued that the private respondents never questioned the
jurisdiction will estop such party from assailing such lack of jurisdiction. 44 In jurisdiction of the NLRC until after the case had been brought on appeal. We
Marquez, the petitioner impugned the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor reiterated that jurisdiction of a tribunal, agency, or office, is conferred by
and the Regional Director contending that all money claims of workers law, and its lack of jurisdiction may be questioned at any time even on
arising from an employer-employee relationship are within the exclusive appeal.
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. We reiterated that the active participation of In Union Motors, the private respondent contended that the petitioners
the party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to actively participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the
object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where the action NLRC and are estopped from assailing their jurisdiction. We maintained the
is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a rule that jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law. Estoppel does
willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause of
later on impugning the court or body's jurisdiction. 45 action. The principle of estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent this Court
Similarly in Ducat, we declared that if the parties acquiesced in from taking up the question of jurisdiction.
submitting an issue for determination by the trial court, they are estopped However, prior to Tijam, this Court already came up with an edifying
from questioning the jurisdiction of the same court to pass upon the issue. 46 rule in People v. Casiano 52 on when jurisdiction by estoppel applies and
I n Bayoca, the petitioners claimed that the property is a public agricultural when it does not:
land over which the trial court has no jurisdiction. We ruled that petitioners
raised this issue only before the Supreme Court and are now estopped The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of
jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower court actually
considering that they have actively participated in the proceedings before
had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was
the lower and appellate courts with their principal defense consisting of the
tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the
certificates of titles in their names. In Jimenez, the petitioners assailed the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such
MeTC's jurisdiction contending that the failure of the complaint to allege the jurisdiction, for the same "must exist as a matter of law, and may
character of the sublease or entry into the property, whether legal or illegal, not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel" (5 C.J.S.,
automatically classified it into an accion publiciana or reinvindicatoria 861-863). However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the
cognizable by the RTC. We held that petitioners cannot now be allowed case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for
belatedly to adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of the instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who
court to which they had submitted themselves voluntarily. 47 induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on
appeal, to assume an inconsistent position — that the lower
I n Centeno, the petitioners alleged that the DARAB does not have court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies.
jurisdiction over the complaint since the dispute is not agrarian in character. The rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not depend
They averred that the case is clearly one for recovery of possession which upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon. (Emphases Ours.)
falls under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. We ruled that petitioners are The rule was cited and applied in several cases such as La Naval Drug
estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction of the DARAB and that Corp. v. Court of Appeals , 53 Lozon v. National Labor Relations Commission ,
participation by certain parties in the administrative proceedings without 54 Metromedia Times Corp. v. Pastorin , 55 Spouses Vargas v. Spouses
raising any objection thereto, bars them from any jurisdictional infirmity Caminas, 56 Figueroa y Cervantes v. People, 57 Atwel v. Concepcion
after an adverse decision is rendered against them. 48 Progressive Association, Inc., 58 Machado v. Gatdula, 59 Cudiamat v.
On the other hand, the cases of Dy v. National Labor Relations Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., 60 Calibre Traders, Inc. v. Bayer
Commission, 49 De Rossi v. National Labor Relations Commission 50 and Philippines, Inc., 61 and Magno v. People. 62
Union Motors Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission 51 buttressed the I n La Naval, we said that whenever it appears that the court has no
rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law and lack of jurisdiction may be jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. This
questioned at any time even on appeal. acEHCD
defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final
I n Dy, the private respondent, who is holding an elective corporate judgment. Neither the courts nor the parties can confer jurisdiction which is
office, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC and not with the legislative in character. 63 In Metromedia Times , the petitioner is not
SEC. The respondent invoked estoppel as against petitioners with respect to estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter before the NLRC
the issue of jurisdiction. We declared that estoppel cannot be invoked to on appeal in line with the general rule that estoppel does not confer
prevent this Court from taking up the question of jurisdiction, which has jurisdiction. We made similar pronouncements in the cases of Lozon, 64
been apparent on the face of the pleadings since the start of litigation. The Spouses Vargas , 65 Figueroa, 66 Atwel, et al., 67 Machado 68 and Magno 69
decision of a tribunal not vested with appropriate jurisdiction is null and void. that estoppel shall not apply when the court or tribunal has no jurisdiction
I n De Rossi , which also involved the removal of a corporate officer, the over the subject matter.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 On the other hand, estoppel was applied in Calibre Traders since the blown trial before the Balayan RTC which had, in fact, decided
trial court had jurisdiction over the respondent's counterclaim even if it petitioners' complaint (about two years before the appellate
incorrectly dismissed the case for non-payment of docket fees, to wit: court rendered the assailed decision) would be an exercise in
futility and would unjustly burden petitioners.
In accordance with the aforementioned rules on payment of
docket fees, the trial court upon a determination that Bayerphil's The Court, in Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals , held that as a
counterclaim was permissive, should have instead ordered Bayerphil general rule, if there is a judicial liquidation of an insolvent bank, all
to pay the required docket fees for the permissive counterclaim, claims against the bank should be filed in the liquidation proceeding.
giving it reasonable time but in no case beyond the reglementary The Court in Valenzuela, however, after considering the
period. At the time Bayerphil filed its counter-claim against Calibre circumstances attendant to the case, held that the general rule
and the spouses Sebastian without having paid the docket fees up to should not be applied if to order the aggrieved party to refile or
the time the trial court rendered its Decision on December 6, 1993, relitigate its case before the litigation court would be "an exercise in
Bayerphil could still be ordered to pay the docket fees since no futility." Among the circumstances the Court considered in that case
prescription has yet set in. Besides, Bayerphil should not suffer from is the fact that the claimants were poor and the disputed parcel of
the dismissal of its case due to the mistake of the trial court. land was their only property, and the parties' claims and defenses
were properly ventilated in and considered by the judicial court.
Considering the foregoing discussion, we find no need to
remand the case to the trial court for the resolution of In the present case, the Court finds that analogous
Bayerphil's counterclaim. In Metromedia Times Corporation v. considerations exist to warrant the application of Valenzuela.
Pastorin, we discussed the rule as to when jurisdiction by Petitioner Restituto was 78 years old at the time the petition was filed
estoppel applies and when it does not x x x. in this Court, and his co-petitioner-wife Erlinda died during the
pendency of the case. And, except for co-petitioner Corazon,
xxx xxx xxx Restituto is a resident of Ozamis City. To compel him to appear
In this case, the trial court had jurisdiction over the and relitigate the case in the liquidation court-Nasugbu RTC
counterclaim although it erroneously ordered its automatic when the issues to be raised before it are the same as those
dismissal. As already discussed, the trial court should have instead already exhaustively passed upon and decided by the Balayan
directed Bayerphil to pay the required docket fees within a RTC will be superfluous. (Emphases Ours.)
reasonable time. Even then, records show that the trial court heard Considering the above doctrines, we rule that the present case is
the counterclaim although it again erroneously found the same to be
exceptional and calls for the application of jurisdiction by estoppel.
unmeritorious. Besides, it must also be mentioned that
Bayerphil was lulled into believing that its counterclaim was Here, Perfecto originally filed his complaint against Lisondra Land
indeed compulsory and thus there was no need to pay docket before the RTC which, as discussed earlier, has jurisdiction over the
fees by virtue of Judge Claravall's October 24, 1990 Resolution. controversy between the parties. However, Lisondra Land claimed that the
Petitioners also actively participated in the adjudication of the case is within the HLURB's exclusive authority. It maintained this theory
counterclaim which the trial court adjudge to be unmeritorious. before the CA which eventually ordered the dismissal of the complaint.
(Emphases Ours.)
Thereafter, Perfecto relied on the final and executory decision of the
EcTCAD

Yet, Cudiamat refused to apply the general rule that estoppel does not appellate court and refiled the action against Lisondra Land with the HLURB.
confer authority upon a court or tribunal and that lack of jurisdiction over the Lisondra Land actively participated in the proceedings before the HLURB.
subject matter can be raised at any time. It established an exception when After receiving an adverse decision, Lisondra Land questioned the
to compel the aggrieved party to refile the case would be an exercise in jurisdiction of the HLURB and claimed that the RTC has the authority to hear
futility or superfluous, viz.: the case. This is where estoppel operates and bars Lisondra Land from
In the present case, the Balayan RTC, sitting as a court of assailing the HLURB's jurisdiction. Lisondra Land cannot now abandon the
general jurisdiction, had jurisdiction over the complaint for quieting of theory behind its arguments before Civil Case No. 18146, CA-G.R. SP No.
title filed by petitioners on August 9, 1999. The Nasugbu RTC, as a 72463 and the HLURB. The Court cannot countenance Lisondra Land's act of
liquidation court, assumed jurisdiction over the claims against the adopting inconsistent postures — first, by attacking the jurisdiction of the
bank only on May 25, 2000, when PDIC's petition for assistance in the trial court and, subsequently, the authority of the HLURB. Otherwise, the
liquidation was raffled thereat and given due course. consequence is revolting as Lisondra Land would be allowed to make a
While it is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction on the complete mockery of the judicial system. In fact, Lisondra Land's conduct
subject matter can be raised at any time and is not lost by had resulted in two conflicting appellate court decisions in CA-G.R. SP No.
estoppel by laches, the present case is an exception. To 72463 and CA-G.R. SP No. 131359 eroding the stability of our legal system
compel petitioners to re-file and relitigate their claims before and jurisprudence.
the Nasugbu RTC when the parties had already been given
the opportunity to present their respective evidence in a full- Also, we are mindful that Tijam presented an extraordinary case
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 because the party invoking lack of jurisdiction did so only after 15 years and [HLURB's Resolution dated January 21, 2010]
at a stage when the proceedings had already been elevated to the appellate There is no clear cut definition of what is unsound real estate
court. This case is likewise exceptional since many years had lapsed from business practice. However, based on the context of PD 1344, it is
2001 when Perfecto filed his complaint in the RTC until 2016 when the Court inferable than an act by the real estate owner/developer that would
of Appeals dismissed the complaint before the HLURB. Like in Tijam, it is now cause prejudice upon its buyers may be classified as such.
too late for Lisondra Land to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction. In the present case, the monitoring issuances of the Regional
Ordinarily, the Court remands the case to the CA for proper disposition Office attest to the violations of PD 957 found to have been
on the merits. Nevertheless, to avoid further delay, we deem it more committed by respondent. The Notice of Violation dated July 21, 2006
found that respondent failed to complete the project development
appropriate and practical to resolve the question of whether Lisondra Land is
within the prescribed period and failed to secure an Extension of Time
guilty of unsound real estate business practice. SDHTEC
to Develop for said project. As a consequence, the project's license
Lisondra Land is guilty of unsound was suspended. There are also findings of introduction of alterations
real estate business practices. on the approved development plan without proper permit. The Legal
Services Group also found that respondent went beyond the scope of
As pointed earlier, Lisondra Land had surrendered the property and the JVA when it introduced developments and sold lots in Lot 1680-B
Perfecto is now in full control of developing the project. However, this did not without authority of complainant and failed to adduce any evidence to
render the case academic. There remains an actual controversy between the support its claim that the development activities were with
parties. The principal issues on whether Lisondra Land is guilty of unsound complainant's consent. The Regional Office also found that
real estate business practices and is liable to pay fines and damages are still respondent sold lots that formed part of the open space of the
unresolved. At most, the surrender of property only mooted Perfecto's prayer project. All these violations may result in unauthorized sales
for the rescission of the joint venture agreement. The Court's declaration on and incomplete development of the project to the prejudice
ultimately of the buyers. 74
the other questions would certainly be of practical value to the parties. 70
Hence, we shall not refrain from rendering a decision on the merits of this [Office of the President's Decision dated August 1, 2013]
case. Lot 1680-A is the subject of the JVA (Phase I) and not Lot 1680-
The policy of PD No. 1344 is to curb the unscrupulous practices of the B (Phase II). Nevertheless, LLI expanded its business development
transactions and activities to Lot 1680-B without completing the
subdivision owner and developer in real estate trade and business that will
development of Lot 1680-A in accordance with the approved plan and
prejudice the buyers. Here, substantial evidence exists that Lisondra Land within the period of twelve (12) months. The license to sell issued for
sold memorial lots which are considered open spaces in the approved Lot 1680-A project mandates that the project shall be completed not
project plan. The location of a 4-unit mausoleum was found out to be the later than 24 February 1998. However, as discovered by the HLURB
parking area of the memorial park. 71 Notably, the sale of open spaces is Regional Field Office No. 1, as of 13 September 2005, the project is
contrary to PD No. 957 which prohibits the unauthorized alteration of plan, still not fully developed. In the same findings, the HLURB suspended
thus: the license to sell of LLI as to blocks 1, 2, 3 and road lot of 5 of the
approved development plan for the reasons that the road networks
Section 22. Alteration of Plans. — No owner or developer shall [are] only about 3-4 inches thick which is less than the required
change or alter the roads, open spaces, infrastructures, facilities for thickness of 6 inches; portions of the road appears to have sunk and
public use and/or other form of subdivision development as contained deteriorated; and there had been alterations in the approved
in the approved subdivision plan and/or represented in its development plans granted and issued by the LGU, specifically on
advertisements, without the permission of the Authority and the block[s] 1, 2 and 3, and block 20 and road lot 5.
written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners
association, or in the absence of the latter, by the majority of the lot LLI's violations of the JVA is further evidenced by the letter
buyers in the subdivision. dated 21 July 2006 issued by the HLURB Regional Office No. 1
suspending temporarily its license to sell for failure to develop the
Also, some areas of the memorial park did not comply with the required project site in accordance with the development plans approved by
thickness of road networks and portions of the road are sinking and the Municipal Government of Mangatarem. Lastly, LLI did not secure
deteriorated. 72 Worse, Lisondra Land sold lots outside the authorized project an approval for extension of time to develop the subject property
site. It developed the adjoining land without consent of the owner and despite the period given by the HLURB to comply with the existing
misrepresented to the public that it was the second phase of the project. 73 laws. 75
Taken together, these violations are prejudicial to the buyers and constitute Lastly, Perfecto is entitled to damages and attorney's fees. As the
unsound real estate business practices which merit the imposition of fines. HLURB aptly observed, Perfecto incurred administrative expenses and fines
We quote with approval the pertinent findings of the HLURB and the Office of because of Lisondra Land's bad faith. Moreover, Perfecto was forced to
the President, thus:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 litigate in order to protect his property rights. Applying Nacar v. Gallery 13. Id. at 155-158.
Frames, 76 the award of moral and exemplary damages shall earn interest at
14. Id. at 160-164.
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the HLURB Arbiter's Decision on
July 20, 2007 until full payment. 15. Id. at 164.
To conclude, the law apportioned the jurisdiction of courts and 16. Id. at 165-170.
tribunals for the orderly administration of justice. Thus, the doctrine of
estoppel must be applied with great care and only when strong equitable 17. Supra note 1.
considerations are present. 77 Here, the unfairness is not only patent but 18. Id. at 43-47.
revolting. Lisondra Land should not be allowed to declare as useless all the
proceedings had between the parties and compel Perfecto to go up to his 19. Id. at 65-66.
Calvary once more. 20. Id. at 12-30.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed 21. Id. at 193-194.
Court of Appeals' Decision dated December 28, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No.
131359 is REVERSED. The Office of the President's Decision dated August 1, 22. Rollo , pp. 176-185.
2013 is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the
23. Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Customs, 760 Phil. 954
award of moral and exemplary damages shall earn interest at the rate of 6% (2015), citing Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Republic, 679
per annum from the date of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Phil. 508 (2012); Spouses Genato v. Viola, 625 Phil. 514 (2010); Perkin Elmer
Arbiter's Decision on July 20, 2007 until full payment. AScHCD
Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corp., 556 Phil. 822 (2007); Allied
SO ORDERED. Domecq Philippines, Inc. v. Villon, 482 Phil. 894 (2004 ); Katon v. Palanca, Jr.,
481 Phil. 168 (2004); and Zamora v. CA, 262 Phil. 298 (1990).
Caguioa, J.C. Reyes, Jr., Hernando * and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
24. Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree effective July 12,
1976. The NHA's jurisdiction includes the registration of subdivision or
Footnotes condominium projects and dealers, brokers and salesmen of subdivision lots
or condominium units; the issuance and suspension of license to sell; and the
* Designated additional Member per Raffle dated August 19, 2020. revocation of registration certificate and license to sell.

1. Rollo , pp. 31-42. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with 25. Supra note 6.
the concurrence of Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Jane
Aurora C. Lantion. 26. Reorganizing the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission effective
February 7, 1981.
2. Id. at 83-86.
27. Identifying the Government Agencies Essential for the National Shelter Program
3. Id. at 75-80. and Defining their Mandates, Creating the Housing and Urban Development
Coordinating Council, Rationalizing Funding Sources and Lending
4. Id. at 87-100. Mechanisms for Home Mortgages and for Other Purposes effective December
17, 1986.
5. Id. at 101-102.
28. Subdivision project shall mean a tract or a parcel of land registered under Act
6. Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue Writ of Execution in the
No. 496 which is partitioned primarily for residential purposes into individual
Enforcement of its Decision under Presidential Decree No. 957.
lots with or without improvements thereon, and offered to the public for sale,
7. Id. at 103-118. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with the in cash or in installment terms. It shall include all residential, commercial,
concurrence of Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia and Danilo B. Pine. industrial and recreational areas as well as open spaces and other
community and public areas in the project. See Section 2 (d) of PD No. 957.
8. Id. at 119.
29. Subdivision lot shall mean any of the lots, whether residential, commercial,
9. Id. at 121-126. industrial, or recreational, in a subdivision project. See Section 2 (e) of PD No.
957.
10. Id. at 127-135.
30. Condominium project shall mean the entire parcel of real property divided or to
11. Id. at 134-135.
be divided primarily for residential purposes into condominium units,
12. Id. at 136-147. including all structures thereon. See Section 2 (g) of PD No. 957.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 31. Condominium unit shall mean a part of the condominium project intended for parameters before the trial court. It is now too late for petitioner to question
any type of independent use or ownership, including one or more rooms or subject order of the trial court.
spaces located in one or more floors (or part of parts of floors) in a building
or buildings and such accessories as may be appended thereto. See Section 47. In this case, the petitioners raised the jurisdictional issue for the first time only
2 (h) of PD No. 957. in the Petition for Review. However, it should be noted that they did so only
after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals. Despite
32. In quite a number of cases, the Court declared the HLURB without jurisdiction several opportunities in the RTC, which ruled in their favor, and in the Court
where the complaint filed did not allege that the property involved is a of Appeals, petitioner never advanced the question of jurisdiction of the
subdivision or condominium project or a subdivision lot or condominium unit. MeTC. Additionally, petitioners participated actively in the proceedings
See Lacson Hermanas, Inc. v. Heirs of Cenon Ignacio, 500 Phil. 673 (2005); before the MeTC and invoked its jurisdiction with the filing of their answer, in
and Spouses Javellana v. Presiding Judge, 486 Phil. 98 (2004). seeking affirmative relief from it, in subsequently filing a notice of appeal
before the RTC, and later, a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals.
33. Delos Santos v. Spouses Sarmiento , 548 Phil. 1 (2007).
48. In this case, a perusal of the records will show that petitioners participated in
34. 257 Phil. 914 (1989). all stages of the instant case, setting up a counterclaim and asking for
35. 533 Phil. 670 (2006). affirmative relief in their answer.

36. 688 Phil. 367 (2012). 49. 229 Phil. 234 (1986).

37. 131 Phil. 556 (1968). 50. 373 Phil. 17 (1999).

38. 255 Phil. 871 (1989). 51. 373 Phil. 310 (1999).

39. 253 Phil. 329 (1989). 52. 111 Phil. 73 (1961).

40. 379 Phil. 753 (2000). 53. 306 Phil. 84 (1994).

41. 394 Phil. 465 (2000). 54. 310 Phil. 1 (1995).

42. 394 Phil. 877 (2000). 55. 503 Phil. 288 (2005).

43. 397 Phil. 170 (2000). 56. 577 Phil. 185 (2008).

44. In this case, the private respondents had at least three opportunities to raise 57. 580 Phil. 58 (2008).
the question of lack of preliminary conference first, when private respondents 58. 574 Phil. 430 (2008).
filed a motion for extension of time to file their position paper; second, at the
time when they actually filed their position paper in which they sought native 59. 626 Phil. 457 (2010).
relief from the Metropolitan Trial Court; and third; when they filed a motion
for reconsideration of the order of the Metropolitan Trial Court expunging 60. 628 Phil. 641 (2010).
from the records the position paper of private respondents, in which motion 61. 647 Phil. 350 (2010).
private respondents even urged the court to sustain their position paper.
62. 662 Phil. 726 (2011).
45. In this case, the complaint was pending before the Regional Director, petitioner
did not raise the issue of jurisdiction but instead actively participated in the 63. In this case, the want of jurisdiction by the court is indisputable, given the
hearings. After the adverse decision of the Regional Director and upon the nature or the controversy. The arbitration law explicitly confines the court's
elevation of the case on appeal to the Secretary of Labor, still no authority only to pass upon the issue of whether there is or there is no
jurisdictional challenge was made. Even in the two motions for agreement in writing providing for arbitration. In the affirmative, the statute
reconsideration of the DOLE decision of affirmance, petitioner did not assail ordains that the court shall issue an order "summarily directing the parties to
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor or the Regional Director. proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof." If the
court, upon the other hand, finds that no such agreement exists, "the
46. In this case, the petitioner's filing of a Manifestation and Urgent Motion to Set proceeding shall be dismissed." The proceedings are summary in nature.
Parameters of Computation is indicative of its conformity with the questioned
order of the trial court referring the matter of computation of the excess to 64. In this case, the Supreme Court sustained the NLRC's dismissal of the illegal
SGV and simultaneously thereafter, the issuance of a writ of possession. The dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter on the ground that the action is
Supreme Court noted that if petitioner thought that subject order was wrong, within the SEC's jurisdiction.
it could have taken recourse to the Court of Appeals but petitioner did not.
Instead he manifested his acquiescence in the said order by seeking 65. In this case, the HLURB and not the trial court which has jurisdiction over the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 controversy. Moreover, the petitioners raised the issue of jurisdiction before
the trial court rendered its decision. They continued to raise the issue on
appeal before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Hence, laches has
not set in.

66. In this case, the petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the
jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack thereof in his
appeal before the appellate court. At that time, no considerable period had
yet elapsed for laches to attach.
67. In this case, the conflict among the parties was outside the jurisdiction of the
special commercial court. The doctrine of jurisdiction by estoppel is not
available absent exceptional circumstance. The respondent cannot be
permitted to wrest from petitioners the administration of the disputed
property until after the parties' rights are clearly adjudicated in the proper
courts. It is neither fair nor legal to bind a party to the result of a suit or
proceeding in a court with no jurisdiction.

68. In this case, the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems did not have
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. Yet, it proceeded to
assume jurisdiction over the case and even issued writs of execution and
demolition against the petitioners. The lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by
the parties' participation in the proceedings. As such, the petitioners can
rightfully question its jurisdiction at any time, even during appeal or after
final judgment.
69. In this case, the Sandiganbayan, not the CA, has appellate jurisdiction over the
RTC's decision. The principle of estoppel cannot cure the jurisdictional defect
of the Ombudsman's petition before the CA.
70. Carpio v. Court of Appeals, 705 Phil. 153 (2013). See also Ticzon v. Video Post
Manila, Inc., 389 Phil. 20 (2000); and Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing
Corp. v. Philippine National Bank, 574 Phil. 340 (2008), citing Philippine
National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 473 (1998).
71. Rollo , pp. 132-133.
72. Id. at 130.
73. Id. at 134.

74. Rollo , pp. 163 and 164.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com