Scribd
Upload
56 views2 pages

San Miguel Properties V Perez

1) San Miguel Properties purchased 130 residential lots from BF Homes, represented by its court-appointed rehabilitation receiver, through three separate deeds of sale. However, 20 title certificates covering 20 lots purchased in the third deed were not delivered by BF Homes. 2) San Miguel Properties filed a criminal complaint against BF Homes directors for non-delivery of titles, in violation of Presidential Decree No. 957, and also sued BF Homes for specific performance in the HLURB to compel delivery of the 20 title certificates. 3) The city prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint, reasoning that the pending administrative case in the HLURB on the issue of BF Homes' liability constituted a prejudicial

Uploaded by

Carina Frost
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views2 pages

San Miguel Properties V Perez

1) San Miguel Properties purchased 130 residential lots from BF Homes, represented by its court-appointed rehabilitation receiver, through three separate deeds of sale. However, 20 title certificates covering 20 lots purchased in the third deed were not delivered by BF Homes. 2) San Miguel Properties filed a criminal complaint against BF Homes directors for non-delivery of titles, in violation of Presidential Decree No. 957, and also sued BF Homes for specific performance in the HLURB to compel delivery of the 20 title certificates. 3) The city prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint, reasoning that the pending administrative case in the HLURB on the issue of BF Homes' liability constituted a prejudicial

Uploaded by

Carina Frost
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC.

,
vs.
SEC. HERNANDO B. PEREZ, et al.,
G.R. No. 166836; September 4, 2013
Ponente: LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
FACTS:
Petitioner San Miguel Properties Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in
the real estate business, purchased from B.F. Homes, Inc., then represented
by Atty. Florencio B. Orendain as its duly authorized rehabilitation receiver
appointed by the SEC. The plan was to acquire 130 residential lots situated
in its subdivision BF Homes Parañaque, containing a total area of 44,345
square meters for the aggregate price of P106,248,000.00. The transactions
were embodied in three separate deeds of sale.

The TCTs covering the lots bought under the first and second deeds were
fully delivered to San Miguel Properties, but 20 TCTs covering 20 of the 41
parcels of land purchased under the third deed of sale, executed in April
1993 and for which San Miguel Properties paid the full price were not
delivered to San Miguel Properties. BF Homes claimed to withhold the
delivery of the 20 TCTs for parcels of land purchased under the third deed of
sale because rehabilitation receiver was replaced by FBO Network
Management, Inc. on May 17, 1989 pursuant to an order from the SEC. BF
Homes refused to deliver the20 TCTs despite demands.

Thus, San Miguel Properties filed a complaint-affidavit charging respondent


directors and officers of BF Homes with non-delivery of titles in violation of
Section 25, in relation to Section 39, both of Presidential Decree No. 957. At
the same time, San Miguel Properties sued BF Homes for specific
performance in the praying to compel BF Homes to release the 20 TCTs in
its favor. The city prosecutor then dismissed San Miguel’s criminal
complaint for violation of PD No. 957 on the ground, among others, that
there existed a prejudicial question necessitating the suspension of the
criminal action until after the issue on the liability of the distressed BF
Homes was first determined by the SEC en banc or by the HLURB. San
Miguel that files a Petition for certiorari to the CA but was then dismissed
again.
 
Issue:
Whether or not the administrative case could be a reason to suspend the
proceedings on the criminal complaint for the violation of PD No. 957 on
the ground of a prejudicial question.
Ruling:
Yes. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid
conflicting decisions. It is determinative of the criminal case, but the
jurisdiction to try and resolve it is lodged in another court or tribunal. It is
based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but is so intimately
connected with the crime that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused. However, San Miguel’s allegation is that there could be no
prejudicial question to speak of because no civil action where the prejudicial
question arose was pending, the action for specific performance in the
HLURB raises a prejudicial question that may be sufficed to suspend the
proceedings determining the charge for the criminal violation of PD No.
957.

You might also like