Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    3 Tropical Homes Inc Vs NHA

    Uploaded by

    phgmb
    This case involves a dispute between Tropical Homes Inc. and a homebuyer over a cancelled property sale contract. The homebuyer appealed the cancellation to the National Housing Authority (NHA) per Presidential Decree 1344, which grants the NHA exclusive jurisdiction over certain real estate cases. Tropical Homes Inc. argued on appeal to the President that the decree violates due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to appeal is statutory and not constitutional, and while the decree does not provide for judicial review of NHA decisions, the extraordinary writs are still available to challenge unconstitutional administrative actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    3 Tropical Homes Inc Vs NHA

    Uploaded by

    phgmb
    85 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between Tropical Homes Inc. and a homebuyer over a cancelled property sale contract. The homebuyer appealed the cancellation to the National Housing Authority (NHA) per Presidential Decree 1344, which grants the NHA exclusive jurisdiction over certain real estate cases. Tropical Homes Inc. argued on appeal to the President that the decree violates due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to appeal is statutory and not constitutional, and while the decree does not provide for judicial review of NHA decisions, the extraordinary writs are still available to challenge unconstitutional administrative actions.

    Original Title

    3 Tropical Homes Inc vs NHA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between Tropical Homes Inc. and a homebuyer over a cancelled property sale contract. The homebuyer appealed the cancellation to the National Housing Authority (NHA) per Presidential Decree 1344, which grants the NHA exclusive jurisdiction over certain real estate cases. Tropical Homes Inc. argued on appeal to the President that the decree violates due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to appeal is statutory and not constitutional, and while the decree does not provide for judicial review of NHA decisions, the extraordinary writs are still available to challenge unconstitutional administrative actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    85 views2 pages

    3 Tropical Homes Inc Vs NHA

    Uploaded by

    phgmb
    This case involves a dispute between Tropical Homes Inc. and a homebuyer over a cancelled property sale contract. The homebuyer appealed the cancellation to the National Housing Authority (NHA) per Presidential Decree 1344, which grants the NHA exclusive jurisdiction over certain real estate cases. Tropical Homes Inc. argued on appeal to the President that the decree violates due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to appeal is statutory and not constitutional, and while the decree does not provide for judicial review of NHA decisions, the extraordinary writs are still available to challenge unconstitutional administrative actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Tropical Homes Inc vs NHA

    Procedural and substantive due process

    Facts: Petitioner Tropical Homes, Inc. entered into a contract with private respondent Arturo P. Cordova
    for the sale to the latter of a lot at Better Living Subdivision in Paranaque, Metro Manila. The contract
    price was P32,108.00. A ten (10) percent downpayment upon the execution of the contract was
    required and the balance payable at a monthly amortization of P318.16 beginning May 17, 1972 for 20
    years. Section 14 of the contract provided that the contract will be automatically cancelled upon default
    in payment of any installment within 90 days from its due date. Cordova was informed through a letter
    signed by Manuel M. Serrano, executive vice-president and general manager of the petitioner
    corporation that the contract was cancelled due to non-payment of installments for a period of seven
    (7) months in violation of the contract, particularly the above-mentioned section. All the earlier
    payments were considered forfeited in favor of the corporation as liquidated damages.

    P.D. No. 1344 was passed providing, inter alia:

    x x x           x x x          x x x

    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 sub-division 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.

    Section 2. The decision of the National Housing Authority shall become final and executory after
    the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of its receipt. It is appealable only to the President of
    the Philippines and in the event the appeal is filed and the decision is not reversed and/or
    amended within a period of thirty (30) days, the decision is deemed affirmed. Proof of the
    appeal of the decision must be furnished the National Housing Authority.

    On June 19, 1978, the petitioners, availing of this decree, appealed to the President of the Philippines.

    In said appeal, it stated that " ... we do not thereby waive the right to question the constitutionality of
    said Decree, which we believe to be violative of the due process clause of the Constitution as well as
    contrary to the primordial concept of separation of powers.

    Issue: Whether or not the mode of review on appeal prescribed by the decree violates the constitutional
    guarantee of due process?
    Ruling: No. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process, except where it is granted
    by statute in which case it should be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of
    law. (Bello v. Francisco, 4 SCRA 134; Rodriguez v. Director of Prisons, 47 SCRA 153). In other words,
    appeal is a right of statutory and not constitutional origin.

    The fact that P.D. No. 1344 does not specifically provide for judicial review of NHA decisions affirmed or
    reversed by the President, does not necessarily preclude judicial review.

    The extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or quo warranto (Rules 65 and 66) are
    always available in proper cases where there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in
    the ordinary course of law. The power of the Supreme Court to strike down acts which infringe on
    constitutional protections or to nullify administrative decisions contrary to constitutional mandates
    cannot be reduced or circumscribed by any statute or decree. No statute is needed to bring arbitrary
    acts or decisions within our jurisdiction.

    You might also like