Del Rosario family’s property firm told to reimburse buyer
Del Rosario family’s property firm told to reimburse buyer of its Hacienda Balai
Phinma Hacienda Balai Quezon CityBy Eileen Mencias
The Court of Appeals has ordered Phinma Property Holdings Corp. to reimburse a buyer of a P1.11 million unit in Hacienda Balai in Quezon City for failure to provide the necessary facilities and improvements.
The buyer initially backed out after a Quezon City Building Official declared the condominium “dangerous and ruinous.”
Phinma is the developer of Hacienda Balai where Joshua Rivera bought a 30-square meter unit on the 5th Floor of its Building 5 in January 2016. He paid an equity of P209,000 with a remaining balance of P836,000 to be paid through a loan from the Home Development Mutual Fund or Pag-Ibig Fund in monthly installments of P5,850.04.
Rivera moved into the unit on April 6, 2017 after paying so-called move-in fees amounting to P29,500. Rivera also had some improvements made in the unit costing him P25,000.
He discovered visible cracks in the main walls supporting the unit and the walls of the toilet and bath and washroom that used precast material, prompting him to raise the issue with the Department of Building Official of Quezon City which then inspected the eight buildings of Hacienda Balai.
Quezon City Engineer Isagani R. Versoza of the City Building Office then issued an order on September 6, 2018 declaring the structure dangerous and ordered Phinma to “rectify/repair/demolish” the buildings immediately and advised its tenants and occupants to vacate the premises immediately.
Phinma sought a reconsideration from the Engineer’s office and the September 6, 2018 order was set aside on the ground that the Hacienda Balai building does not manifest structural deficiencies.“In said order, it was specifically stated that the building was assessed by Abinales Associates Engineers+Consultants, whose main proponent is a well-respected Structural Engineer in the country, and it was concluded that “the building do not manifest structural deficiencies that may indicate structural instability of the building and do not pose imminent danger to the occupants of the facilities,” Phinma said.
At around the same period, Phinma had requested the HLURB to give it more time or until June 30, 2020 to develop Hacienda Balai which the HLURB granted but without prejudice to the buyers who will want to exercise their rights. The request was granted September 7, 2018. The HLURB also fined Phinma P10,000 that same month and ordered it to cease and desist from selling, advertising, and collecting amortizations from unit buyers until allowed.
Rivera asked the HLURB to be cleared of the housing loan and compel Phinma to refund him in full the P209,000 equity he paid, the P93,600.64 monthly amortizations he has paid, the P25,000 cost of unit improvements, P50,000 each in moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of P60,000, and the full payment of P14,500 in move-in fee. HLURB Arbiter Rowena Balasolla decided in favor of Rivera on July 29, 2019. Phinma appealed the decision and was denied on August 25, 2020 because the issuance of the permit that granted it extension to complete the project should not prefudice the rights of buyers that have accrued prior to the extension.
Phinma appealed and the CA’s former 15th division ruled on October 20, 2021 that its petition was without merit.
In her decision, Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes said Presidential Decree No. 957 was issued to prevent people from being victimized by unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and that it was issued because of mounting complaints about developers reneging on their obligations to home buyers.
She said PD No. 957 orders property developers to provide the necessary facilities and improvements and that their failure to do so shall be sufficient cause for the buyer to suspend payment and that any sums of money already paid shall not be forfeited.
“Clearly, the law provides two remedies in case of incomplete development of the subdivision project: (1) reimbursement of the total amount paid, including amortization interests but excluding delinquency interests with interest thereon at the legal rate; or (2) for the buyer to suspend amortization payments until the completion of the project,” Paredes said.
She said the grant of extension categorically stated that it should not prejudice the rights of buyer which Rivera exercised. She said the buy back of the Pag-Ibig loanis only right because Phinma already received the proceeds of the loan and that the award of the attorney’s fees and litigation expenses are proper.
Paredes said, “due to petitioner’s refusal to refund, respondent was compelled to litigate his claim before the HLURB and incur expenses to protect his rights and interests,” Paredes said.
Phinma appealed Paredes’ decision and the appeal was dismissed on June 23, 2022.
“In said order, it was specifically stated that the building was assessed by Abinales Associates Engineers+Consultants, whose main proponent is a well-respected Structural Engineer in the country, and it was concluded that “the building do not manifest structural deficiencies that may indicate structural instability of the building and do not pose imminent danger to the occupants of the facilities,” Phinma said.
At around the same period, Phinma had requested the HLURB to give it more time or until June 30, 2020 to develop Hacienda Balai which the HLURB granted but without prejudice to the buyers who will want to exercise their rights.
PHINMA Properties has been making homes and communities for over 30 years and will continue to strive to help make lives better.
The request was granted on September 7, 2018. The HLURB also fined Phinma P10,000 that same month and ordered it to cease and desist from selling, advertising, and collecting amortizations from unit buyers until allowed.
HLURB arbiter Rowena Balasolla decided in favor of Rivera on July 29, 2019. Phinma appealed the decision but it was denied. The property firm elevated its case to the CA but also lost its case due to lack of merit.
“A thorough review of the motion for reconsideration reveals that appellants arguments are mere reiterations of points and issues which were extensively discussed and addressed in our decision sought to be reconsidered and since no new matter and argument had been raised, we find no cogent reason to justify the modification, amendment or reversal thereof,” the CA said.
Rivera asked the HLURB to be cleared of the housing loan and compel Phinma to refund him in full the P209,000 equity he paid, the P93,600.64 monthly amortizations he has paid, the P25,000 cost of unit improvements, P50,000 each in moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of P60,000, and the full payment of P14,500 in move-in fee.
HLURB Arbiter Rowena Balasolla decided in favor of Rivera on July 29, 2019. Phinma appealed the decision and was denied on August 25, 2020 because the issuance of the permit that granted it extension to complete the project should not prefudice the rights of buyers that have accrued prior to the extension.
Phinma appealed and the CA’s former 15th division ruled on October 20, 2021 that its petition was without merit.
In her decision, Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes said Presidential Decree No. 957 was issued to prevent people from being victimized by unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and that it was issued because of mounting complaints about developers reneging on their obligations to home buyers.
She said PD No. 957 orders property developers to provide the necessary facilities and improvements and that their failure to do so shall be sufficient cause for the buyer to suspend payment and that any sums of money already paid shall not be forfeited.
“Clearly, the law provides two remedies in case of incomplete development of the subdivision project: (1) reimbursement of the total amount paid, including amortization interests but excluding delinquency interests with interest thereon at the legal rate; or (2) for the buyer to suspend amortization payments until the completion of the project,” Paredes said.
She said the grant of extension categorically stated that it should not prejudice the rights of buyer which Rivera exercised. She said the buy back of the Pag-Ibig loan is only right because Phinma already received the proceeds of the loan and that the award of the attorney’s fees and litigation expenses are proper.
Paredes said, “due to petitioner’s refusal to refund, respondent was compelled to litigate his claim before the HLURB and incur expenses to protect his rights and interests,” Paredes said.
Phinma appealed Paredes’ decision and the appeal was dismissed on June 23, 2022.
Phinma said: “We acknowledge and respect the power of the Courts to render a decision on the issue but we will exhaust the legal remedies available to us. As such, this matter has not reached its finality and may be decided otherwise on appeal.”
“We assure the public that Hacienda Balai Condominium is a prime development that is safe, stable and finished with high quality materials, ensuring our homeowners a durable and long- lasting investment. PHINMA Properties has been making homes and communities for over 30 years and will continue to strive to help make lives better,” Phinma said.
3 Likes2 Replies
nice
thanks
