AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v JESUS FACTORA

FACTS:
1. Sevenis Enterprises (Sevenis), owner of a parcel of land, engaged in the services of
Jesus Factora for the construction of a 4 storey condominium on the said lot.
2. To finance the construction, Sevenis obtained a loan from Fund Centrum, secured
by a mortgage on the realty project.
3. When Sevenis loan became due, in order for it to settle its obligations, Sevenis
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Fund Centrum.
o They entered into a Dacion in Payment 1 wherein Sevenis assigned and
conveyed to Fund Centrum the land and improvements therein.
o For the payment of indebtness of Sevenis to Factora, a contractors lien will
be given to Factora and agrees to assign 3 2BR units to come from the
project.
o By virtue of the Dacion in Payment, Sevenis will be relieved from its liability
to Fund and Factora without prejudice to receiving its share in the net
residue.
4. Subsequently, Fund, being the new owner of the condominium building sold the
same to Supreme Capital. In turn, Supreme Capital conveyed the property to MCI
Real Estate and Development (MCI) in a Contract to Sell.
5. MCI then entered into a Lease Agreement with AMA, which converted the
condominium into a computer school.
o The conversion included the 3 2BR units assigned to Factora by virtue of the
MOA.
6. Factora then filed 2 complaints against Fund, Supreme Capital and AMA with the
Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for the recovery of condominium certificates
of title and damages.
7. OAALA dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. HLURB affirmed
OOALAs decision.
8. Unsatisfied, Factora elevated the decision to the Office of the President whereby it
granted Factoras appeal and set aside the decision of the HLURB.
o Factora can recover condominium certificates of title.
9. AMA then filed a petition for review with CA.
10. CA dismissed AMAs petition.
11. Hence, this petition.
o AMAs contention:
HLURB has no jurisdiction over the cases because it Factora did not
acquire ownership of the subject condominium units pursuant to the
MOA. Hence, he is not a condominium buyer within the purview of
the The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree
(PD 957).

1Dacion in Payment.
Article 1425. There is dation in payment when property is alienated to the creditor for satisfaction of a debt in money.
Here, the debtor transmits to the creditor the formers ownership over a thing as an accepted equivalent of the payment or
performance of an obligation. Hence, dacion en pago is one mode of extinguishing an obligation.
ISSUE: Whether or not HLURB has jurisdiction over the cases.

HELD: YES.

1. PD 1344 expanded the jurisdiction of PD 957.

2. HLURBs has jurisdiction on the ff cases:
(1) Any claims filed by condominium buyer against the project owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman,
(2) Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
obligations filed by buyers of condominium unit against the owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
3. Corollarily, a transaction to buy and purchase under P.D. 957 has been defined as
any contract to buy, purchase, or otherwise acquire for a valuable consideration, a
condominium unit in a condominium project.
4. The term buyer is not limited to those who enter into contracts of sale. Its concept
is broad enough as to include those who acquire for a valuable consideration a
condominium unit.
o Thus, a buyer of said unit seeking to enforce the performance of an
obligation arising from such transaction, or claiming damages
therefrom, may bring an action with the HLURB.
5. In the case at bar, Factora is a buyer within the contemplation of P.D. 957. He
acquired the 3 units as they were assigned to him by Sevenis in payment for its
indebtness for the construction of the condominium. His acquisition of the units was
for a valuable consideration.
o By virtue of the assignment, respondent relieved Sevenis from its
indebtedness to him. The extinguishment of such indebtedness
vested upon respondent the right to own the said units.
6. Hence, cases for specific performance of contractual obligations against
condominium owners filed by buyers fall within HLURBs jurisdiction.