Hlurb 2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Office of the President

HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD
National Capital Region Field Office
Kalayaan Road, Quezon City
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Plaintiff,
-- versus -- HLURB CASE
NO.98765
For: REIMBURSEMENT
TGFSI INC.
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Board
most respectfully alleges:
1. That herein plaintiff is a Filipino, of legal age, signle and a resident of 651
National Road Poblacion Muntinlupa City while the respondent is a
Domestic Corporation, with office address Unit 1819 Balatas Royal
Mansion, Balagtas St., Pasay City where said corporation may be served
with summons and other processes of the Honorable Board;
2. respondent Corporation is a property developer and is represented by its

president Boni Bonifacio.
3. Herein Plaintiff is a signatory to a contract of sale, dated November 3,

2010, of real property located at 777 Dasmarinas Village, Makati City,
which the respondent is the other party to the contract. Said Contract of
sale is hereto attached as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof;
4. That the plaintiff deposited to respondent corporation’s account the

amount of Php 1,000,000.00 as one of the stipulations of the contract of
sale, said stipulation is marked as Annex “A-1”;
5. That the plaintiff, after contacting the principal owner of the object of sale,
discovered that the owner did not yet authorize the respondent to sell the
property or which authority is still pending;
6. That the plaintiff, after several verbal demands of reimburse the money
deposited, sent a final demand letter to the Respondent. Said demand letter
is attached as Annex “B” and made an integral part hereof;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Board that after due hearing a judgment be rendered in favor of the
plaintiff and against the Respondent as follows:
a. Annulment of the Contract of Sale between plaintiff and

Respondent;
b Ordering the respondent to reimburse to the plaintiff the
amount of Php 1,000,000.00
Plaintiff prays for such and other further relief as may be just and equitable under
the premises.
Muntinlupa City for Quezon City, December 1, 2010.
De Leon Law Office
Counsel for Plaintiff

#12 National Road
Muntinlupa City
By:
Robert De Leon
Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 777777
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION
I, Patrick P. Alvar, Filipino, of legal age, and resident of 651 National Road
Poblacion Muntinlupa City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
depose and say:
That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case; that I have

caused the preparation of the foregoing COMPLAINT having supplied
all the material allegations contained therein and hereby attest that they
are true and correct to my own personal knowledge and belief and based
on authentic records.
In compliance with the Supreme Court, Administrative Circular
No. 04-94, I hereby certify under oath that I have not heretofore
commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issue in
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency. Neither is there any such action or proceeding pending in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals of before any other tribunal or agency;
and
In the event that I learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals
or any other tribunal or agency, I hereby undertake to report the fact
within five (5) days there from to this Honorable Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of

December 2010 in Muntinlupa City.
Patrick P. Alvar
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by Patrick P. Alvar, who is personally
known to me to be the same person who presented the foregoing instrument and signed
the instrument in my presence, this 1st day of December 2010 at Muntinlupa City, affiant
exhibiting to me his Passport No.080707 issued on August 7, 2010 by the Department of
Foreign Affairs.
Atty. Robert De Leon

Notary Public of Muntinlupa
Commission Serial No. 0808
Until Dec. 31, 2011
Roll of Attorney No. 777777
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Plaintiff,
-- versus -- HLURB CASE NO.
ULR-
98765
For: REIMBURSEMENT
TGFSI INC.
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
respondent, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Board most
respectfully states:
1. Respondent admits paragraphs 1,2,3,4 of the Complaint;
2. Respondent specifically denies paragraph 5 of the Complaint for being the

property developer of said property, TGFSI, Inc. has such interest as a co-
owner of the subject property and may sell or alienate it to a third party;
3. Respondent specifically denies paragraph 6 for there is no right for the

plaintiff to demand reimbursement since it is covered by a valid contract
between both parties.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Plaintiff has no cause of action against Respondent;

2. Plaintiff entered into a valid contract of sale with Respondent, said
contract not being contrary to law or public morals shall produce the effect
of the law binding both parties;
3. Complaint must be dismissed for lack of cause of action by the plaintiff.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondent respectfully prays that the

Complaint be dismissed. Other just and equitable relief under the premises is likewise
prayed for.
BINAY LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Respondent

#8 Balagtas St.
Pasay City
By:
Atty. Jejemon Binay

Pasay City
Roll No. 001010
MCLE Compliance No.
2222222222
COPY FURNISHED:
De Leon Law Office

#12 National Road
Muntinlupa City
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION
I, Boni Bonifacio, representing TGFSi Inc, after having been sworn to in

accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
I have caused the preparation of the foregoing ANSWER having

supplied all the material allegations contained therein and hereby attest
that they are true and correct to my own personal knowledge and belief
and based on authentic records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of

December 2010 in Pasay City.
Boni Bonifacio
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by Boni Bonifacio, who is personally known

to me to be the same person who presented the foregoing instrument and signed the
instrument in my presence, this 6th day of December 2010 at Pasay City, affiant
exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No.000222 issued on December 6, 2010
at Pasay City, MM.
Atty. Jejemon Binay

Notary Public of Pasay City
Until Dec. 31, 2012
IBP No. L-594837
PTR No. 685
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010

PATRICK P. ALVAR
Complainant,
ULR-98765
For: Reimbursement
TGFSI INC.
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
REPLY
COMPLAINANT, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable

Board most respectfully states:
1. That it received the Answer of Respondent Corporation on
December 8 2010.
2. That Complainant specifically denies paragraph 2 of the Answer
which states that respondent is a co-owner of the said property after

checking with the civil registrar that subject property is represented by
TCT NO. 444444 that indicates one Noynoy Aquino being the owner of
the property. Said Contract of sale is hereto attached as Annex “C” and
made an integral part hereof.
3. That Complainant specifically denies paragraph 2 of respondent’s
affirmative defenses for lack of legal personality of the Respondent
corporation to enter into the subject contract of sale.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainant prays that the Respondent

corporation’s motion to dismiss be denied.
Complainant prays for such and other further relief as may be just and equitable
under the premises.
De Leon Law Office

#12 National Road
Muntinlupa City
By:
Robert De Leon
Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 777777
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
COPY FURNISHED:
BINAY LAW OFFICE

Atty. Jejemon Binay
#8 Balagtas St.
Pasay City

PATRICK P. ALVAR
Plaintiff,
ULR-98765
For: REIMBURSEMENT
TGFSI INC.
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
Complainant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Board
most respectfully alleges:
I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE
1. On November 3, 2010, Patrick P. Alvar herein plaintiff, entered into

Contract of Sale of Real Property, located 777 Dasmarinas Village Makati
Cty, with TGFSi Inc., copy of the said Contract of Sale is hereto attached
and marked as Exhibit “A” and made an integral part hereof;
2. Upon the execution of the contract, plaintiff paid the amount of Php
1,000,000.00 to respondents which is stipulated in the Contract of Sale,
said stipulation is marked as Annex “A-1”;
3. The plaintiff, after contacting the principal owner of the object of sale,
discovered that the owner did not yet authorize the Respondent to sell the
property or which authority is still pending. The principal owner, in his
Sworn-Affidavit hereto attached as Annex “D,” declared that the
Respondent corporation is a developer of condominium units, but was not
authorized by him to sell the subject property;
4. The plaintiff made several demands from Respondent Corporation to

reimburse the amount paid to plaintiff, but to no avail. Plaintiff sent
respondent a final demand letter, attached hereto as Annex “B”;
5. On December 1, 2010, the plaintiff filed a complaint for reimbursement,

specifically praying for annulment of the Contract of Sale between
complainant and Respondent;
6. After repeated failure of the respondent to appear during the scheduled

pre-trial, the Honorable Arbiter issued an order directing the parties to
submit their respective verified position papers within thirty (30) days
from receipt thereof. The complainant received the order on December 15,
2010; hence, the filing of this position paper is on time.
II. ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT

CORPORATION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SELL
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE RESPONDENT
HAVING MISLED THE COMPLAINANT INTO
BELIEVING THAT IT HAS THE LEGAL
PERSONALITY TO ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT
OF SALE
III. ARGUMENT / DISCUSSION
7. The property subject of the complaint is undoubtedly under the name of

Noynoy Aquino, the original owner of the real property. It is indisputable
that he employed the services of Respondent Corporation as property
developer of condominium units.
8. The defrauding scheme of Respondent corporation in its act of selling the
real property to complainant without apparent authority from the original
owner, thereby prejudicing complainant when the latter paid the
consideration of the contract. Pertinently, Article 22 of the Civil Codes
provides:
Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other

means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of
the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
Reimbursement, thus, is proper in these circumstances, given that there is a clear

case of bad faith on the part of respondent in entering into the contract without legal
authority from the owner. He acted in behalf of the original owner without valid legal
representation. Article 1403 of the Code provides:
The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
(1) Those entered into the name of another person by one who has
been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted
beyond his powers;
xxxx
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Board that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the Respondent as
follows:
a. Ordering the Respondent to reimburse the amount of PhP 1 million, the
consideration for the contract of sale;
b Ordering the Respondent to pay damages and attorney’s fees.
Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Muntinlupa City for Quezon City, January 7, 2011.
De Leon Law Office

#12 National Road
Muntinlupa City
By:
Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 777777
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
COPY FURNISHED:
BINAY LAW OFFICE

Atty. Jejemon Binay
#8 Balagtas St.
Pasay City
VERIFICATION
depose and say:
That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case; that I have

caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper having supplied
all the material allegations contained therein and hereby attest that they
are true and correct to my own personal knowledge and belief and based
on authentic records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of

January 2011 in Muntinlupa City.
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Affiant

the instrument in my presence, this 7th day of January 2011 at Muntinlupa City, affiant
Foreign Affairs.

Until Dec. 31, 2011
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011

PATRICK P. ALVAR,
Complainant-Appellee,

ULR-
98765
For: REIMBURSEMENT
TGFSI INC.,
Respondent-Appellant.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
COUNTER MEMORANDUM
Complainant-appellee, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is a Counter-Memorandum to the Appeal Memorandum filed by

Respondent-appellant.
TIMELINESS
Complainant-appellee received a copy of the Memorandum on January 18, 2011.

Thus, this Counter-Memorandum is timely filed.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

4. The plaintiff made several demands from respondent corporation to


complainant and Respondent;
6. On January 17, 2011, the Housing Land Use Arbiter issued the Decision;
7. On January 18, 2011, Complainant-appellee received the Respondent-

appellant’s Appeal Memorandum.
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CORPORATION

HAS A LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SELL THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY
ARGUMENTS
1. As correctly held by the Housing Land Use Arbiter in its Decision, the property
cannot be alienated in favor of the plaintiff, as there was no valid legal authority to sell
as required by the Rules of the HLURB.
2. The Contract of Sale is unenforceable because of such lack of legal authority, as

buttressed by Article 1403(1) of the Civil Code, which provides that a contract is
unenforceable when it is “entered into the name of another person by one who has been
given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers.” Such
provision is clear and has no room for interpretation, as claimed by respondent.
3. As to the reimbursement, Article 22 of the Code is clear on the matter that unjust
enrichment is obtaining in the instant case. It provides:
“Every person who through an act of performance by another, or
any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something
at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return
the same to him.”
Thus, applying the above provision, respondent prejudiced the

complainant by possessing the consideration involved in the
contract of sale at the expense of the complainant without just or
legal ground. Respondent must then be compelled to return the
same amount to complainant.
4. Respondent-appellee has given no reason for the Decision to be reversed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainant-appellee respectfully prays

that the Decision be upheld. Other just and equitable relief under the premises is likewise
prayed for.
Muntinlupa City for Quezon City, January 27, 2011.
De Leon Law Office

#12 National Road
Muntinlupa City
By:
Robert De Leon
Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 777777
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
COPY FURNISHED:
BINAY LAW OFFICE
Atty. Jejemon Binay
#8 Balagtas St.
Pasay City
VERIFICATION
depose and say:
That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case; that I have

caused the preparation of the foregoing Counter-Memorandum having
supplied all the material allegations contained therein and hereby attest
that they are true and correct to my own personal knowledge and belief
and based on authentic records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this January 27,

2011 in Muntinlupa City.
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Affiant

the instrument in my presence, this 7th day of January 2011 at Muntinlupa City, affiant
Foreign Affairs.
Until Dec. 31, 2011
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011

NOTICE OF APPEAL
Petitioner-Appellant: TGFSI INC. Petition No. 348637

Title: Patrick Alvar v. TGFSI INC.
Date: 20 December 2011
Petitioner-Appellant respectfully gives notice that it is appealing to the Office of

the President the decision dated 17 January 2011 of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board of Commissioners, who denied the appeal of Petitioner Appellant in
Hlurb Case No. ULR-98765.
A copy of the decision of the Board of Commissioners was received by the

Petitioner-Appellant on the 17th day of January 2011.
_____________________________________
TGFSI INC.,
represented by Boni Bonifacio, President

PATRICK P. ALVAR
Complainant-Appellee,

ULR-
98765
For: REIMBURSEMENT
TGFSI INC.,
Respondent-Appellant.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
APPEAL MEMORANDUM
Respondent-Appellant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an Appeal to the Honorable Board from the Decision dated 17 January
2011 rendered by the Honorable Housing and Land Use Arbiter Red Rover (“Questioned
Decision”), pursuant to the Rule XVI, Section 1 of the 2009 Rules of Procedure of the
Board.
A copy of the Questioned Decision is attached hereto as Annex “1.”
TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL
Respondent-appellant received a copy of the Questioned Decision on 17 January

2011. Thus, this Appeal Memorandum is timely filed.
Proof of payment of the required fees and proof of service of the Appeal
Memorandum on the other parties are attached hereto.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

4. The plaintiff made several demands from respondent corporation to

complainant and Respondent.
6. On January 17, 2011, the Housing Land Use Arbiter issued the Decision;
THE QUESTIONED DECISION
7. In the Questioned Decision, the Honorable Housing and Land Use Arbiter
ruled in favor of the complainant-appellee.
8. Respondent-appellant respectfully submits that the Honorable Housing

and Land use Arbiter/Regional Officer committed reversible error in
rendering the decision and that the same is contrary to fact and law.
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE HOUSING AND LAND USE ARBITER

COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT
COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE IS ENTITLED TO
REIMBURSEMENT AND THAT RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO THE
CONTRACT OF SALE
ARGUMENTS
9. TGFSI, Inc. has an interest as a co-owner of the subject property and may
sell or alienate it to a third party. Article 493 thus provides:
Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits
and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or
mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment x x x. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Respondent-appellant is a co-owner with the alleged principal owner, as
they both exercise full ownership on the subject property. This cannot be denied
by the complainant, for entering into the contract of sale made him bound to
admit that TGFSI, Inc. is one and true co-owner of Noynoy Aquino.
10. There is no right for the plaintiff to demand reimbursement, since the
Contract of Sale he entered into with TGFSI, Inc. is covered by a valid
contract between both parties. The contract is the law between the parties,
and denial of its validity is tantamount to a breach of the contract, more so
when one party seeks to declare its unenforceability. Article 1308 of the
Civil Code provides:
The contracts must bind both parties; its validity or compliance cannot be
left to the will of one of them.
In sum, what the complainant is advancing is that he may move for the
unenforceability of the contract. This is untenable for he had bound himself to its
terms and conditions of the sale—a valid transaction between complainant and
respondent.
11. Contrary to the findings of the Honorable Housing and Land Use Arbiter,
complainant-appellee cannot demand reimbursement from respondent corporation,
because there is no unenforceable contract to speak of. Also, the Honorable Housing and
Land Use Arbiter erred in ruling that the property cannot be alienated in favor of the
plaintiff, as respondent corporation is a co-owner of the property who may alienate the
property and enter into a contract not contrary to law, public morals and public policy.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondent-Appellant respectfully prays

that the Decision dated 17 January 2011 rendered by the Honorable Housing and Land
Use Arbiter be reversed and set asside. Other just and equitable relief under the premises
is likewise prayed for.

BINAY LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Respondent

#8 Balagtas St.
Pasay City
By:
Atty. Jejemon Binay

Pasay City
Roll No. 001010
MCLE Compliance No.
2222222222
COPY FURNISHED:
De Leon Law Office

#12 National Road
Muntinlupa City

Hlurb 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hlurb 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Office of the President

2. respondent Corporation is a property developer and is represented by its

3. Herein Plaintiff is a signatory to a contract of sale, dated November 3,

4. That the plaintiff deposited to respondent corporation’s account the

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

a. Annulment of the Contract of Sale between plaintiff and

Muntinlupa City for Quezon City, December 1, 2010.

De Leon Law Office

Counsel for Plaintiff

That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case; that I have

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of

Atty. Robert De Leon

1. Respondent admits paragraphs 1,2,3,4 of the Complaint;

2. Respondent specifically denies paragraph 5 of the Complaint for being the

3. Respondent specifically denies paragraph 6 for there is no right for the

1. Plaintiff has no cause of action against Respondent;

3. Complaint must be dismissed for lack of cause of action by the plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondent respectfully prays that the

Muntinlupa City for Quezon City, December 5, 2010.

BINAY LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Respondent

Atty. Jejemon Binay

De Leon Law Office

I, Boni Bonifacio, representing TGFSi Inc, after having been sworn to in

I have caused the preparation of the foregoing ANSWER having

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by Boni Bonifacio, who is personally known

Atty. Jejemon Binay

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COMPLAINANT, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable

1. That it received the Answer of Respondent Corporation on

2. That Complainant specifically denies paragraph 2 of the Answer

which states that respondent is a co-owner of the said property after

made an integral part hereof.

3. That Complainant specifically denies paragraph 2 of respondent’s

affirmative defenses for lack of legal personality of the Respondent

corporation to enter into the subject contract of sale.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Complainant prays that the Respondent

Muntinlupa City for Quezon City, December 8, 2010.

De Leon Law Office

Counsel for Plaintiff

BINAY LAW OFFICE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

1. On November 3, 2010, Patrick P. Alvar herein plaintiff, entered into

4. The plaintiff made several demands from Respondent Corporation to

5. On December 1, 2010, the plaintiff filed a complaint for reimbursement,

6. After repeated failure of the respondent to appear during the scheduled

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT

III. ARGUMENT / DISCUSSION

7. The property subject of the complaint is undoubtedly under the name of

Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other

Reimbursement, thus, is proper in these circumstances, given that there is a clear

The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Muntinlupa City for Quezon City, January 7, 2011.

De Leon Law Office

Counsel for Plaintiff

BINAY LAW OFFICE

That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case; that I have

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of