Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
Unit #702 of Heart Tower Condominium in Makati City is subject of this controversy. [Summary of this
controversy: DEFAULT IN PAYMENT FOR CONDO]
o Segovia Development Corporation (Segovia) sold it to Masahiko Morishita
o Masahiko Morishita sold and assigned all rights thereto in favor of Parkway Real Estate
Development Corporation (Parkway)
o Parkway and Maxima Realty and Development Corporation entered into an agreement to buy
and sell, on instalment basis for P3 million. Part of the stipulation included a default clause that
Maxima will forfeit amounts paid by way of liquidated damages in case of failure to pay.
o Maxima defaulted, and was able to pay P1.18 million because of grace periods. (Balance =
P1.82 million)
o On May 10, 1990, Parkway, with the consent of Segovia arranged for a Deed of Assignment
transferring all rights to the condominium in favour of Maxima so that Maxima has show
property to secure a loan with RCBC. Segovia and Maxima agreed also that the title will be
transferred under Maximas name for P58,114 as transfer fees, and other expenses.
o Maxima continued its default with Parkway and Segovia.
o Parkway cancelled its agreement to buy and sell with Maxima, as well as the Deed of
Assignment.
Maxima filed a case with the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs of the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for specific performance to enforce the agreement to buy and sell.
HLURB Arbiter sustained nullification.
[IMPORTANT FACTS:]
Maxima appealed to the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB (Board). At this level, Maxima agreed
to pay the outstanding balance but still failed to pay, and the appeal was again resolved in favour of
Parkway. Maxima received the decision on April 19, 1994.
On May 10, 1994, Maxima appealed the Boards decision to the Office of the President, which
dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time.
Maxima brought the decision to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the decision of the Office of
the President.
Issue:
Was the petitioners appeal before the Office of the President filed within the reglementary period?
Ruling:
NO. Following the doctrine laid out in SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office of the President, it resolved the
conflict between two rules.