The Supreme Court’s decision in Amparo Roxas v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Manotok Realty, Inc. clarifies that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) does not automatically have jurisdiction over cases involving subdivision owners and lot buyers. The Court ruled that jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action, emphasizing that HLURB primarily handles cases filed by buyers against developers, not the reverse, especially in unlawful detainer actions. This decision prevents parties from circumventing court jurisdiction by framing disputes as HLURB matters.

Navigating Property Disputes: When Does HLURB’s Authority Begin and End?

This case arose from a dispute between Amparo Roxas, a buyer of a subdivision lot, and Manotok Realty, Inc., the subdivision developer. Manotok Realty filed an unlawful detainer case against Roxas in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) after rescinding their contract to sell due to Roxas’s failure to pay stipulated monthly payments. Roxas argued that the case fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB, citing Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1344. The MeTC initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, asserting that the MeTC had jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling, leading Roxas to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court addressed two key issues: whether Roxas could raise the issue of jurisdiction at this stage of the proceedings, and whether the case fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that Roxas was estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction. In her initial pleadings before the MeTC, Roxas argued that the complaint failed to state a cause of action due to the purported failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the HLURB. However, after receiving a favorable judgment at the MeTC, she changed her argument, adopting the theory that the action was one for accion publiciana (recovery of the right to possess) before the RTC and CA. The Supreme Court emphasized that a party cannot change their theory on appeal, especially when it would require the presentation of further evidence, stating:

When, however, a party adopts a particular theory, and the case is tried and decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the importance of consistency in legal arguments. Roxas had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the regular courts and could not now claim that the HLURB had exclusive jurisdiction. This inconsistency was a key factor in the Court’s decision. To further clarify the matter, the Court then addressed the second issue, concerning the HLURB’s jurisdiction.

The Court emphasized that the mere relationship between the parties as subdivision owner/developer and lot buyer does not automatically vest jurisdiction in the HLURB. The decisive element is the nature of the action as enumerated in Section 1 of P.D. 1344, which states:

Sec. 1. In the exercise of its function to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases of the following nature:

1. Unsound real estate business practices;
2. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
3. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.

The Court noted that the HLURB primarily has jurisdiction over complaints filed *by* subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman. In this case, the action was initiated by the developer, Manotok Realty, against the buyer, Roxas, for unlawful detainer. The Court distinguished this case from others where the HLURB’s jurisdiction was upheld, such as those involving complaints for specific performance filed by buyers against developers. The Court then referenced a key ruling:

A person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.

Based on this, since Manotok Realty’s complaint sufficiently described an action for unlawful detainer, the MeTC of Marikina properly acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter. The cause of action arose from Roxas’s failure to vacate the premises upon lawful demand, with her possession being by mere tolerance or permission.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the HLURB had exclusive jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case filed by a subdivision developer against a lot buyer, or whether the regular courts had jurisdiction.
What is unlawful detainer?	Unlawful detainer is a legal action to recover possession of property from someone who initially had lawful possession but whose right to possess has ended, and who refuses to leave after a demand to vacate.
What is the role of the HLURB?	The HLURB regulates real estate trade and business, with jurisdiction over cases like unsound real estate practices and claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers against developers.
When does the HLURB have jurisdiction over property disputes?	The HLURB has jurisdiction primarily over cases filed by buyers against developers, concerning contractual and statutory obligations, or unsound real estate practices.
Can a party change their legal theory during an appeal?	Generally, no. A party is bound by the legal theory they presented in the lower courts and cannot change it on appeal, especially if it would require new evidence.
What is the significance of P.D. 1344 in this case?	P.D. 1344 defines the jurisdiction of the HLURB, specifying the types of cases it can hear and decide, particularly those involving disputes between buyers and developers.
What does it mean to be ‘estopped’ in legal terms?	Estoppel prevents a party from asserting a right or claim that contradicts their previous actions or statements, especially if it has been relied upon by another party.
How did the Court determine jurisdiction in this case?	The Court determined jurisdiction based on the allegations in the complaint filed by Manotok Realty, which described an action for unlawful detainer, falling under the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

This case provides a clear delineation of jurisdiction between the regular courts and the HLURB in property disputes. It reinforces the principle that the nature of the action, as determined by the allegations in the complaint, dictates which body has jurisdiction. This decision also underscores the importance of maintaining consistency in legal arguments throughout the course of litigation.

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: AMPARO ROXAS VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AND MANOTOK REALTY, INC., G.R. No. 138955, October 29, 2002