ASG Law

Tag: Homebuyers Rights

  • Protecting Homebuyers: P.D. 957 Prevails Over Bank Mortgages in Subdivision Sales

    In a case involving a homeowner, a property developer, and a bank, the Supreme Court affirmed the protective reach of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957, also known as the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree. The Court ruled that the homeowner’s rights, as a fully-paying buyer, must prevail over the bank’s mortgage claim on the property. This decision underscores the law’s commitment to safeguarding the interests of individual homebuyers against the complexities of real estate development financing. It ensures that banks, when dealing with properties in such developments, must exercise due diligence and respect the existing contracts between developers and buyers.

    Mortgaged Homes and the Law: Who Protects the Little Guy?

    Teresita Tan Dee purchased a residential lot from Prime East Properties Inc. (PEPI) on an installment basis. Later, PEPI mortgaged several properties, including Dee’s, to Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan. After Dee fully paid for the lot, she sought the title from PNB, but the bank refused to release it due to the existing mortgage. This led Dee to file a complaint, arguing that her rights as a homeowner should take precedence. The central legal question was whether PNB, as the mortgagee, was bound to respect Dee’s rights as a prior purchaser of the property, especially considering the protective provisions of P.D. No. 957.

    The Supreme Court addressed the principle of **relativity of contracts**, which generally states that contracts bind only the parties involved and cannot prejudice third persons. While PNB argued it was not a party to the sale agreement between Dee and PEPI, the Court clarified that PNB’s obligation to release the mortgage arose not from the contract of sale itself, but from the legal mandate imposed by P.D. No. 957. The Court emphasized that this decree is a social justice measure designed to protect vulnerable homebuyers from unscrupulous developers and their creditors.

    Section 25 of P.D. No. 957 explicitly mandates the developer to deliver the title to the buyer upon full payment, stating:

    Sec. 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith.

    Building on this principle, the Court acknowledged PNB’s argument that it had a valid mortgage over the property, cleared by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). However, the Court clarified that the HLURB approval did not negate the protective provisions of P.D. No. 957. The bank’s rights, derived from the mortgage agreement, could not supersede the rights of Dee, who had already fulfilled her contractual obligations by fully paying for the property.

    The Court also addressed the significance of the Memorandum of Agreement between PEPI and PNB, which involved a *dacion en pago*. A *dacion en pago* is the delivery and transmission of ownership of a thing by the debtor to the creditor as an accepted equivalent of the performance of the obligation. The Court noted:

    Dacion en pago or dation in payment is the delivery and transmission of ownership of a thing by the debtor to the creditor as an accepted equivalent of the performance of the obligation. It is a mode of extinguishing an existing obligation and partakes the nature of sale as the creditor is really buying the thing or property of the debtor, the payment for which is to be charged against the debtor’s debt.

    The Court found that the execution of the *dacion en pago* effectively extinguished PEPI’s loan obligation to PNB concerning the value of Dee’s property. This meant PNB had essentially stepped into the shoes of PEPI, inheriting both the rights and obligations of the developer, including the obligation to release the mortgage upon full payment by the buyer.

    Furthermore, the court referenced *Luzon Development Bank v. Enriquez*, highlighting the principle that a bank dealing with a property already subject to a contract to sell is bound by that contract. Banks are expected to exercise due diligence and investigate the existence of prior contracts to sell before accepting properties as collateral. This is especially important when dealing with real estate development projects.

    The Court concluded that the social justice objective of P.D. No. 957 mandates that the rights of small lot buyers prevail over the interests of large financial institutions. To further illustrate, here is a comparison of the positions of the parties involved:

    Party Argument Court’s Finding
    Philippine National Bank (PNB) Valid mortgage; not privy to the sale agreement between Dee and PEPI. Bound by P.D. No. 957; must respect Dee’s rights as a fully-paying buyer.
    Teresita Tan Dee Fully paid for the property; entitled to the title free from encumbrances. Rights are protected by P.D. No. 957 and take precedence over PNB’s mortgage claim.
    Prime East Properties Inc. (PEPI) Obligated to deliver the title; dacion en pago extinguished the debt. Still obligated to facilitate the release of the title to Dee.

    The decision serves as a reminder to financial institutions to exercise caution and conduct thorough due diligence when dealing with properties within real estate development projects. Failure to do so may result in the subordination of their mortgage rights to the rights of individual homebuyers protected by P.D. No. 957. This protects individuals who invest their hard-earned money in purchasing homes and ensures developers and their creditors cannot circumvent legal obligations.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a bank’s mortgage claim on a property could supersede the rights of a homeowner who had fully paid for the lot, especially under the protection of P.D. No. 957.
    What is P.D. No. 957? P.D. No. 957, also known as the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree, is a law designed to protect individuals who purchase lots or units in subdivision or condominium projects. It aims to prevent fraud and ensure developers fulfill their obligations.
    What is a *dacion en pago*? A *dacion en pago* is a mode of extinguishing an obligation where the debtor delivers and transfers ownership of a thing to the creditor as an accepted equivalent of the performance of the obligation. It’s essentially a payment in kind.
    What does the principle of relativity of contracts mean? The principle of relativity of contracts states that contracts generally bind only the parties involved and their successors-in-interest. It means a contract typically cannot impose obligations or confer rights on those who are not party to it.
    How did the HLURB approval of the mortgage affect the case? While the HLURB approval validated the mortgage between PNB and PEPI, it did not negate the protective provisions of P.D. No. 957. The court determined that Dee’s rights as a homeowner took precedence.
    What is the significance of Section 25 of P.D. No. 957? Section 25 mandates developers to deliver the title to the buyer upon full payment and requires them to redeem any outstanding mortgage on the property within six months. This provision is crucial for protecting the rights of homebuyers.
    What is the main takeaway for banks from this case? Banks must exercise due diligence when dealing with properties within real estate development projects and investigate potential contracts to sell. They risk subordinating their mortgage rights to the rights of individual homebuyers.
    Why did the Court side with the homeowner in this case? The Court emphasized that P.D. No. 957 is a social justice measure designed to protect vulnerable homebuyers. As such, the law favors the rights of small lot buyers over the interests of large financial institutions.

    This case reaffirms the importance of P.D. No. 957 in protecting the rights of homebuyers and underscores the need for financial institutions to exercise caution and conduct thorough due diligence when dealing with properties in real estate development projects. The decision provides a clear legal framework for balancing the interests of developers, banks, and individual homebuyers, ensuring that the rights of the latter are adequately protected.

    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: Philippine National Bank vs. Teresita Tan Dee, G.R. No. 182128, February 19, 2014

  • Protecting Homebuyers: HLURB’s Authority Over Mortgaged Properties

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board’s (HLURB) authority to declare mortgages unenforceable against homebuyers when developers mortgage properties without the required HLURB approval and without informing the buyers. This ruling protects homebuyers who have contracts to sell, ensuring their rights are prioritized over the mortgagee’s claim, especially when the mortgage violates the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 957, also known as “The Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective Decree.” The decision reinforces the HLURB’s role in regulating real estate practices to safeguard the interests of vulnerable homebuyers.

    Developer’s Debt vs. Homebuyer’s Dream: Who Prevails?

    This case, Home Bankers Savings & Trust Co. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 128354, April 26, 2005, revolves around a common yet distressing scenario: a real estate developer mortgages properties already subject to contracts to sell, without the knowledge or consent of the homebuyers and without securing the necessary approvals from the HLURB. When the developer defaults on the loan, the bank forecloses the mortgage, leaving the homebuyers in a precarious position. The central legal question is whether the bank’s right as a mortgagee prevails over the homebuyers’ rights under their contracts to sell, particularly when the mortgage was constituted in violation of P.D. No. 957.

    The facts of the case reveal that several individuals entered into separate contracts to sell with TransAmerican Sales and Exposition (TransAmerican), managed by Engr. Jesus Garcia, for townhouse units located in Quezon City. These contracts stipulated that upon full payment, the titles would be transferred to the buyers free from all liens and encumbrances. However, Garcia later obtained a loan from Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company, mortgaging the properties without the knowledge or consent of the homebuyers and without HLURB approval. When Garcia defaulted on the loan, the bank foreclosed the properties, prompting the homebuyers to file a complaint with the HLURB, seeking to annul the mortgage and protect their rights.

    The HLURB ruled in favor of the homebuyers, declaring the mortgage unenforceable against them and ordering the bank to deliver the titles free from any liens. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Office of the President and the Court of Appeals. The appellate court anchored its ruling on the case of Union Bank of the Philippines vs. HLURB, which established HLURB’s jurisdiction over such disputes. Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning HLURB’s jurisdiction and arguing that it was a mortgagee in good faith.

    The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in the bank’s petition. The Court emphasized HLURB’s exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and protect homebuyers, citing P.D. No. 1344, which expanded HLURB’s powers to include cases involving unsound real estate business practices and claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers against developers. The Court reiterated that the act of mortgaging the subdivision without the knowledge and consent of the unit buyer and without the approval of the HLURB is a violation of Section 18 of P.D. No. 957.

    Section 18 of P.D. No. 957 explicitly states:

    Sec. 18. Mortgages – No mortgage on any unit or lot shall be made by the owner or developer without prior written approval of the authority. Such approval shall not be granted unless it is shown that the proceeds of the mortgage loan shall be used for the development of the condominium or subdivision project and effective measures have been provided to ensure such utilization. The loan value of each lot or unit covered by the mortgage shall be determined and the buyer thereof if any shall be notified before the release of the loan. The buyer may, at his option, pay his installment for the lot or unit directly to the mortgagee who shall apply the payments to the corresponding mortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot or unit being paid for, with a view to enabling said buyer to obtain title over the lot or unit promptly after full payment thereof.

    The Court underscored that this provision is a prohibitory law, meaning that any acts committed contrary to it are considered void. The Supreme Court rejected the bank’s argument that it was unaware of any buyers at the time the mortgage was constituted, noting that the contracts to sell were executed as early as 1988, prior to the mortgage. The Court also dismissed the bank’s claim of being a mortgagee in good faith, stating that the bank was negligent in failing to inquire into the status of the lots and verify whether Garcia had secured the necessary authority from HLURB to mortgage the properties. The Court has stated that, “Judicial notice can be taken of the uniform practice of banks to investigate, examine and assess the real estate offered as security for the application of a loan.” The Court reiterated that financial institutions have a responsibility to exercise due diligence in protecting their loan activities and cannot simply rely on clean titles without further investigation.

    Moreover, the Court held that the bank’s negligence took the place of registration, thus it is presumed to know the rights of respondents over the lot. The conversion of the status of petitioner from mortgagee to buyer-owner will not lessen the importance of such knowledge. Neither will the conversion set aside the consequence of its negligence as a mortgagee. In the case of Far East Bank and Trust Co. vs. Marquez, the Supreme Court elaborated on the responsibility of mortgagees in similar circumstances:

    Petitioner bank should have considered that it was dealing with a [townhouse] project that was already in progress. A reasonable person should have been aware that, to finance the project, sources of funds could have been used other than the loan, which was intended to serve the purpose only partially. Hence, there was need to verify whether any part of the property was already the subject of any other contract involving buyers or potential buyers. In granting the loan, petitioner bank should not have been content merely with a clean title, considering the presence of circumstances indicating the need for a thorough investigation of the existence of buyers like respondent. Having been wanting in care and prudence, the latter cannot be deemed to be an innocent mortgagee.

    The Court also addressed the bank’s contention that the homebuyers were negligent in failing to register their contracts to sell. The Court clarified that the responsibility to register the contracts lies with the seller, not the buyer, according to Section 17 of P.D. No. 957. As a result, the bank could not claim to be an innocent purchaser for value and in good faith and was therefore bound by the contracts to sell.

    Furthermore, the Court emphasized the option provided in the last paragraph of Section 18 of P.D. No. 957, which allows homebuyers who have not yet fully paid to directly pay their installments to the mortgagee, who is then required to apply such payments to the mortgage indebtedness. This provision aims to enable buyers to obtain title over their properties promptly after full payment.

    Finally, the Court addressed the fact that the case against the developer, Garcia/TransAmerican, was archived due to the inability to serve summons. The Court clarified that Garcia/TransAmerican was not an indispensable party in determining the validity of the mortgage, and therefore, the absence of Garcia/TransAmerican did not prevent the HLURB from resolving the dispute between the homebuyers and the bank.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a mortgage constituted by a real estate developer without the knowledge and consent of homebuyers and without HLURB approval is enforceable against those homebuyers.
    What is HLURB’s role in this type of dispute? HLURB has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate real estate trade and protect homebuyers, including the power to declare mortgages unenforceable when they violate P.D. No. 957.
    What is P.D. No. 957? P.D. No. 957, also known as “The Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective Decree,” is a law designed to protect innocent homebuyers from unscrupulous real estate developers.
    What does Section 18 of P.D. No. 957 say about mortgages? Section 18 prohibits developers from mortgaging any unit or lot without prior written approval from HLURB, ensuring that the proceeds of the loan are used for the development of the project.
    Who is responsible for registering the contracts to sell? The seller (developer) is responsible for registering the contracts to sell with the Register of Deeds, according to Section 17 of P.D. No. 957.
    What happens if the developer fails to notify HLURB about the mortgage? If the developer fails to notify HLURB and get written approval, the mortgage can be declared invalid and unenforceable against homebuyers.
    Can homebuyers pay their installments directly to the bank? Yes, homebuyers who haven’t fully paid have the option to pay their installments directly to the mortgagee, who must apply such payments to the mortgage indebtedness.
    What is the duty of banks when dealing with real estate developers? Banks have a duty to exercise due diligence in investigating the status of the properties being mortgaged, including verifying whether the developer has secured HLURB approval and inquiring about existing contracts to sell.
    Is the developer an indispensable party in resolving mortgage disputes? No, the developer is not always an indispensable party, and HLURB can resolve disputes between homebuyers and the mortgagee even in the developer’s absence.

    In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of protecting homebuyers’ rights and enforcing the provisions of P.D. No. 957. The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms HLURB’s authority to regulate the real estate industry and ensure that financial institutions exercise due diligence when dealing with real estate developers. It serves as a reminder to banks that they cannot simply rely on clean titles without further investigation, especially when dealing with ongoing development projects.

    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: HOME BANKERS SAVINGS & TRUST CO. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 128354, April 26, 2005