The Supreme Court, in Dazon v. Yap, clarified that regular courts, not the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), have jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations of Presidential Decree (PD) 957, also known as “The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree.” This means that individuals accused of violating PD 957, such as developers failing to refund payments, will be tried in regular courts, ensuring that criminal accountability is addressed through the judicial system. This ruling reinforces the separation of regulatory and punitive functions, preserving HLURB’s role in regulating the real estate industry while entrusting criminal prosecutions to the courts.

When Condominium Dreams Turn Sour: Who Decides Criminal Responsibility Under PD 957?

The case revolves around Ma. Luisa G. Dazon’s purchase of a condominium unit from Primetown Property Group, Inc., headed by Kenneth Y. Yap. After Primetown failed to complete the project, Dazon demanded a refund of her payments, as provided under Section 23 of PD 957. When the refund was not forthcoming, Dazon filed a criminal complaint against Yap, alleging a violation of Section 23 in relation to Section 39 of PD 957. This led to a critical legal question: Does the Regional Trial Court (RTC) have jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations of PD 957, or is it the exclusive domain of the HLURB?

The Department of Justice (DOJ), upon review, directed the withdrawal of the Information filed against Yap, asserting that the HLURB, not the RTC, possessed jurisdiction over the case. This directive stemmed from the DOJ’s interpretation that the HLURB’s mandate encompassed all matters related to real estate business practices under PD 957. However, this view was challenged by Dazon, who argued that the law does not explicitly vest exclusive jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations of PD 957 in the HLURB. This disagreement underscores the fundamental issue of statutory interpretation and the delineation of powers between administrative bodies and the courts.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized that jurisdiction is conferred by law, based on the material allegations in the complaint and the nature of the relief sought. The Court examined the scope and limitations of the HLURB’s jurisdiction, noting that its primary function is the regulation of the real estate trade and business. While PD 957 grants the HLURB powers to regulate real estate activities, including the registration of projects and the issuance of licenses, the Court found no explicit provision granting the HLURB jurisdiction over criminal matters. This distinction is crucial in understanding the separation of powers and the specific roles assigned to different government entities.

The Court invoked the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning the express mention of one thing excludes others not expressly mentioned. This principle is vital in interpreting statutes, as it suggests that the legislature’s specific enumeration of powers implies an intent to exclude powers not listed. The Court noted that while PD 957 grants the HLURB the authority to impose administrative fines, it does not explicitly authorize the HLURB to hear and decide criminal cases or impose criminal penalties such as imprisonment. This silence is interpreted as a deliberate exclusion of criminal jurisdiction from the HLURB’s purview.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court underscored that administrative agencies, like the HLURB, are tribunals of limited jurisdiction, wielding only the powers specifically granted to them by their enabling statutes. The Court referenced Section 38 of PD 957, which allows the HLURB to impose administrative fines not exceeding ten thousand pesos. In contrast, Section 39 of PD 957 outlines penalties for criminal violations, including fines exceeding ten thousand pesos and/or imprisonment. The Court emphasized that Section 39 does not state that the HLURB has the power to impose these criminal penalties. This distinction highlights the legislature’s intent to reserve criminal jurisdiction for the courts.

The Supreme Court contrasted the HLURB’s limited jurisdiction with the broad jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) over criminal cases. Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 129, which defines the jurisdiction of courts, states that RTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or body. This provision clarifies that unless a specific law designates another body to handle a particular type of criminal case, the RTCs retain jurisdiction. Given that PD 957 does not explicitly grant the HLURB jurisdiction over criminal actions, the Supreme Court concluded that the RTCs are the proper venue for such cases.

The implications of this ruling are significant for both developers and buyers in the real estate sector. Developers facing criminal charges under PD 957 will be tried in the regular courts, ensuring a fair and impartial judicial process. Buyers seeking redress for violations of PD 957 can pursue criminal charges against developers through the courts, in addition to seeking administrative remedies through the HLURB. This dual-track approach provides buyers with greater protection and recourse in cases of developer misconduct.

The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that regulatory powers and criminal jurisdiction are distinct and should be exercised by separate bodies. The HLURB’s expertise lies in regulating the real estate industry and enforcing administrative rules and regulations. The courts, on the other hand, are responsible for adjudicating criminal cases and ensuring that individuals who violate the law are held accountable. This separation of powers promotes both effective regulation and fair enforcement of justice.

The factual backdrop of the case underscores the importance of protecting the rights of condominium buyers. When developers fail to fulfill their obligations, buyers are entitled to seek remedies under PD 957, including the refund of payments. The ability to pursue criminal charges against unscrupulous developers provides an additional layer of deterrence and protection for buyers. This ruling helps ensure that developers are held accountable for their actions and that buyers’ investments are safeguarded.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dazon v. Yap affirms the principle that criminal actions arising from violations of PD 957 fall under the jurisdiction of the regular courts, not the HLURB. This ruling clarifies the scope of HLURB’s regulatory powers and reinforces the importance of judicial oversight in criminal matters. By separating regulatory and punitive functions, the Court ensures that both the real estate industry is effectively regulated and that individuals who violate the law are held accountable through the judicial system. The decision ultimately protects the rights of condominium buyers and promotes fairness and transparency in the real estate sector.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations of Presidential Decree (PD) 957.
What is Presidential Decree (PD) 957?	PD 957, also known as “The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree”, is a law that regulates the real estate trade and business and protects the rights of subdivision and condominium buyers.
What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that regular courts, specifically the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), have jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from violations of PD 957, not the HLURB.
What is the HLURB’s primary function?	The HLURB’s primary function is the regulation of the real estate trade and business, including the registration of subdivision and condominium projects and the issuance of licenses to sell.
What is the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius?	The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius means that the express mention of one thing in a law excludes others that are not expressly mentioned.
What remedies are available to buyers under PD 957 if a developer fails to deliver a project?	Buyers may demand a refund of their payments, including amortization interests, and may also pursue criminal charges against the developer for violations of PD 957.
What is the significance of Section 39 of PD 957?	Section 39 of PD 957 outlines the penalties for criminal violations of the decree, including fines and/or imprisonment, but does not grant the HLURB the power to impose these penalties.
How does this ruling protect condominium buyers?	This ruling protects condominium buyers by ensuring that criminal violations of PD 957 are adjudicated in the regular courts, providing an additional layer of deterrence and protection for buyers’ investments.

This landmark decision clarifies the division of authority between regulatory bodies and the courts in enforcing real estate laws. By affirming the RTC’s jurisdiction over criminal actions related to PD 957 violations, the Supreme Court upholds the rule of law and ensures that individuals are held accountable for their actions in the real estate sector.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MA. LUISA G. DAZON, PETITIONER, VS. KENNETH Y. YAP AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS., G.R. No. 157095, January 15, 2010