Dear Atty. Kathy,

I bought a condominium unit from XXX. However, XXX did not give me the keys to the unit and the condominium certificate of title already under my name after I gave him the full purchase price, which is contrary to what we agreed in our contract. With the help of my lawyer, I filed a criminal case against XXX for the violation of Presidential Decree No. 957, the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree. Fortunately, I was able to get a decision from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), allowing me to reimburse what I paid. But, XXX does not want to pay me because he said that the RTC does not have jurisdiction. Is XXX correct? If he is correct, who has jurisdiction over my case?

Mike

□□□□□

Dear Mike,

Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 957, or the “Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree,” vested upon the National Housing Authority (NHA) exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business. Presidential Decree No. 1344 was thereafter enacted which expanded NHA’s jurisdiction to hear and decide cases as follows:

SECTION 1. In the exercise of its functions 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 cases of the following nature:

(a) Unsound real estate business practices;

(b) 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

(c) 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 regulatory and quasi-judicial functions of the NHA were transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (Executive Order 648), which was renamed as HLURB. Thereafter, HLURB was reconstituted as the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) (Republic Act 11201).

While the RTC has jurisdiction over the criminal action for violation of Presidential Decree 957, XXX is correct in saying that the RTC has no jurisdiction, specifically as to the parties’ civil liability arising from the contract entered into by the parties, since parties’ breach of contractual obligations is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB, now the HSAC.

As ruled by the Supreme Court, that a court without jurisdiction cannot render a valid judgment, the decision of the RTC on XXX’s civil liability is therefore null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

(Vivien M. Cadungog, et al. vs Sung Ha Jung, G.R. No. 254543, 2 April 2025)

Atty. Kathy Larios