[51] MAXIMA REALTY MANAGEMENT v.
PARKWAY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ISSUE(S)/HELD
CORPORATION
GR No. 136492; Feb 13, 2004; Ynares-Santiago, J.
TOPIC: Limits on Rule-Making Power
SUMMARY: Parkway and Maxima entered into an agreement to buy and sell, on installment basis
Unit No. 702 of Heart Tower Condominium for P3,000,000. It was further agreed that failure to pay
any of the installments on their due dates shall entitle Parkway to forfeit the amounts paid by way
of liquidated damages. Since Parkway was not paid the balance of P1,820,000.00, it cancelled its
agreement to buy and sell and Deed of Assignment in favor of Maxima. Both Parkway and Maxima
appealed to the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB. The Board rendered judgment in favor
of Parkway. Maxima appealed to the Office of the President which dismissed the appeal for
having filed out of time. CA affirmed the decision of the Office of the President in toto.
DOCTRINE
The Presidential Decree, which is a law, prevails and the Administrative Rule is void. It is axiomatic
that administrative rules derive their validity from the statute that they are intended to implement.
Any rule which is not consistent with the statute itself is null and void.
RELEVANT PROVISION(S)
FACTS
 Segovia Development Corporation (Segovia) sold Unit No. 702 of Heart Tower
Condominium in Makati City 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 installment basis for P3,000,000.
 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.
 Parkway was not paid the balance of P1,820,000.
 On May 10, 1990, Parkway, with the consent of Segovia, arranged for a Deed of
Assignment transferring all rights to the condominium in favor of Maxima so that Maxima
has “show property” to secure a loan with RCBC.
o Segovia and Maxima also agreed that the title will be transferred under
Maxima’s name for P58,114 as transfer fees, together with other expenses.
o However, Maxima continued to be in default with Parkway and Segovia
rendering Parkway to cancel 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.
o HLURB Arbiter sustained nullification.
o Maxima appealed to the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB (Board) and
agreed to pay the outstanding balance but still failed to give payment.
o Thus, the appeal was again resolved in favor of Parkway.
 Maxima received the decision on April 19, 1994.
 On May 10, 1994, Maxima appealed the Board’s decision to the Office of the President.
o OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time.
o CA affirmed in toto the decision of the Office of the President.
WON petitioner’s appeal before the Office of the President filed within the reglementary
period. –NO.
 Following the doctrine laid out in SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office of the President, it
resolved the conflict between two rules:
o Sec. 15, PD 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protection Degree)
& Sec. 2, PD 1344 (Empowering the National Housing Authority to issue Writ
of Execution in the Enforcement of its Decision under PD No. 957), the period
to appeal the decision of the Board of Commissioners of HLURB to the Office
of the President is fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed decision.
 While the 1994 HLURB Rules of Procedure suggest a 30-day period of appeal under
Section 27, the same stipulation also provides for following Administrative Order No.
18 series of 1987, which starts with
o Section 1. Unless otherwise governed by special laws, an appeal to the Office
of the President shall be taken within thirty (30) days from receipt by the
aggrieved party of the decision/resolution/order complained of or appealed
from.
o This Administrative Order qualifies such 30-day period, and because of the
two Presidential Decrees mentioned above that falls squarely on the
controversy (a sale of a condo), the 15-day period applies.
 In fact, Sec. 27 of HLURB 1994 Rules of Procedure no longer holds true for being in
conflict with the provisions of the aforementioned presidential decrees.
o For it is axiomatic that administrative rules derive their validity from the
statute that they are intended to implement. Any rule which is not
consistent with [the] statute itself is null and void.
o In the case at bar, the 15-day period applies, so if the adverse decision was
received on April 19, 1994, the appeal to the Office of the President should
have been filed on May 4, 1994.
 May 10 was beyond the reglementary period.
RULING
In this case, petitioner received a copy of the decision of HLURB on October 23, 1995. Considering
that the reglementary period to appeal is fifteen days, petitioner has only until November 7, 1995,
to file its appeal. Unfortunately, petitioner filed its appeal with public respondent only on November
20, 1995 or twenty-eight days from receipt of the appealed decision, which is obviously filed out
of time.
In the case at bar, Maxima had until May 4, 1994, the fifteenth day from receipt of the decision of
the Board on April 19, 1994, to appeal to the Office of the President. The appeal which was filed
on May 10, 1994 was clearly beyond the reglementary period.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the December 9, 1998 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41866 which sustained the June 2, 1998 Order of the Office
of the President in O.P. Case No. 5697 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.