UP Law F2021 047 Maxima Realty v.

Parkway Real Estate

Administrative Law Admin Order No. 18 Series of 2004 Ynares-Santiago
1987; PD 957 and 1344; HLURB
Rules of Procedure

SUMMARY

When the HLURB decided against Maxima Realty, it appealed the said decision to the Office of the President
(OP), and filed it within the 30-day reglementary period (but more than 15 days after receipt of decision) as
provided in HLURB Rules. Said Rule points to Admin Order 18 which provides that 30-day reglemnetary
period applies if there are no specific laws governing the case. The OP pointed to PD 957 and PD 1344 as
specific laws governing the case, which provided for 15 days reglementary period, and the appeal having filed
outside the reglementary period, dismissed the same. A Maxima appealed the dismissal with the CA. CA
upheld OP. Upon appeal in SC, upheld HLURB, saying that the period of appeal of 30 days provided in HLURB
Rules of Procedure no longer holds true for being in conflict with the provisions of aforesaid presidential
decrees. 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.

FACTS

 Segovia Development Corp. (Segovia) sold a condominium unit (Unit #702) in Valero St., Salcedo
Village, Makati to Masahiko Morishita, who in turn sold the same to Parkway Real Estate Dev’t. Corp.
(Parkway) on October 16, 1989;
 In April 1990, petitioner Maxima Realty (Maxima) and Parkway entered into an agreement to buy/sell
the said unit on installment basis for total consideration of P3M;
 Further stipulation provides that failure to pay any installments on their due dates shall entitle
Parkway to forfeit the amounts paid by way of liquidated damages;
 Maxima paid a total of P1.18M before it defaulted. It was granted several grace periods but was not
able to pay further;
 May 10, 1990 - Parkway, with consent of Segovia, executed a Deed of Assignment to Maxima to be used
as security for the loan it undertakes to obtain from RCBC for the remaining amount of P1.82M;
 Segovia further agreed with Maxima to transfer title directly to Maxima’s name subject to condition of
payment of some administrative charges of P58,114.00;
 RCBC informed Parkway that it approved the loan subject to submission of the title transferred to
Maxima’s name;
 Segovia did not issue the said title because of non-payment of P58,114.00;
 The multiple agreements fell apart: RCBC did not release the cash due to non-submission of the title,
Parkway was not paid, consequently, Parkway cancelled its agreement with Maxima;
 Maxima filed an action for specific performance with HLURB;
 Dec. 17, 1992 HLURB Arbiter sustained the cancellation of deed and ordered the refund of P1.18M to
Maxima;
 Mar. 14, 1994 - Upon appeal, HLURB Board modified the earlier decision and ordered to refund only
50% of Maxima’s payment;
 April 19 - Maxima received a copy of the decision;
 May 10 - Maxima appealed with the Office of the President (OP) but the same was dismissed for being
filed outside of the reglementary period which is 15 days from receipt of decision based on PD 957
§151 and PD 1344 §22;
 Maxima appealed with the CA. CA upheld OP;
 Hence this petition for review on certiorari, averring that it was filed within the reglementary period;

1
provides that the decisions of the National Housing Authority (NHA) shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15)
days from the date of receipt of the decision
2
states that decisions of the NHA shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of its receipt.

NOTE: Functions of NHA has been transferred to HLURB by virtue of EO 684 and EO 90
  Maxima relied on HLURB Rules of Procedure §273 which provides for 30-day reglementary period.
Said section however provides that such reglementary period be in accordance with Admin Order No.
18 series of 19874.

RATIO

W/N Maxima filed its appeal before the OP within the reglementary period
No.

Maxima’s reliance with HLURB Rules of Procedure is misplaced. Said section is qualified by Admin Order
18, which specifically states that 30-day reglementary period only applies if there are no special laws
governing particular cases which provide for a shorter or longer reglementary period.

The Court noted that the existence of PD 957 §15 and PD 1344 §2 which mandate a shorter period of 15
days within which to appeal a case to the OP. Accordingly, the period of appeal of 30 days set forth in §27
of HLURB 1994 Rules of Procedure no longer holds true for being in conflict with the provisions of aforesaid
presidential decrees. 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.

FALLO

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.

3
Section 27. Appeal to the Office of the President— Any party may, upon notice to the Board and the other party, appeal the decision
of the Board of Commissioners or its division to the Office of the President within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof pursuant to and
in accordance with Administrative Order No. 18, of the Office of the President dated February 12, 1987. Decision of the President shall
be final subject only to review by the Supreme Court on certiorari or on questions of law.
4
Section 1 provides: 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.