1) WHETHER OR NOT THIS OFFICE HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT;

2) WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANTS HAVE LEGAL

STANDING TO FILE THE COMPLIANCE; and

3) WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS GROUND TO CANCEL THE

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, LICENSE TO SELL AND
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE TO
RESPONDENT MEGAWORLD IN ITS CITYPLACE AT BINONDO
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.

As to the first issue, this Office rules in the negative. This present complaint
is for the cancellation/revocation of Certificate of Registration, License to Sell and
Development Permit which this Office has issued to respondent Megaworld in its
Cityplace at Binondo residential condominium project, and also, the recall of
Condominium Certificates of Title for the said Cityplace at Binondo residential
condominium project. The complainants’ ground for such revocation is that the
titles submitted by respondent Megaworld are “highly questionable, infirm and
dubious”. The titles allegedly did not match or are incompatible with the purported
originating OCT. In other words, although the complaint is denominated as
cancellation/revocation of the Certificate of Registration, License to Sell and
Development Permit, it is clear from the totality of the material allegations in the
complaint, as well as the multiple pleadings they filed for the production and
inspection of the subject Certificate of Title, that complainants are actually
questioning the validity and propriety of the Certificates of Title submitted by
respondent Megaworld.

It is well settled that a Torrens Title cannot be collaterally attacked. The

issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only
be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose (Co vs. CA and Memjie
G.R. No. 93687, 06 May 1991). The present complaint is a collateral attack on the
validity of the Certificates of Title submitted by respondent Megaworld. A
collateral attack, as differentiated from a direct attack, is made when, in another
action to obtain a different relief, the certificate of title is assailed as an incident in
the said action (Spouse Decaleng vs. Philippine Episcopal Church, G.R. NO.
171209, 27 June 2012). This present complaint, in the guise of praying for the
revocation/cancellation of the Registration Certificate and License to Sell of the
Cityplace at Binondo residential condominium project, is actually questioning the
validity of the Certificates of Title submitted by respondent Megaworld. Such
collateral attack is not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens
title.

It is already established that certificates of title serve as evidence of an

idefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein
(Spouses Decaleng vs. Philippine Episcopal Church, G.R. No. 171209, 27 June
2012). Until and unless such titles are declared invalid by the proper court in a
proceeding initiated for such purpose, the certificates of title submitted by
respondent Megaworld to this Office remain valid.

Moreover, this Office is not the proper forum to question the legality,
validity or propriety of said Certificates of Title. As in fact, this Office has no
jurisdiction to resolve such issues. The jurisdiction of this Office, similar to other
quasi-judicial bodies, is limited to those specifc cases provided by law (Sunday vs.
Gocolay, G.R. No. 144892, 23 September 2005). The jurisdiction of this Office as
provided by PD No. 1344 is limited to the following:

“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 the 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

subdivision 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.”

It is also emphasized that this Office has no jurisdiction over respondent

City of Manila. Said respondent is not a developer, owner, buyer, dealer, or
broker. Neither was it active in the real estate trade and business transactions
involved in this case. The limitations imposed by law on the jurisdiction of the
HLURB, prohibits this Office from attaining jurisdiction over the City of Manila,
or passing upon and resolving the issue of title raised by complainants. Hence, the
complaint must ultimately fail.

Anent the second issue, this Office also rules in the negative. Even
assuming that the complaint is considered merely as an action to cancel/revoke the
Certificate of Registration, License to Sell and Development Permit for the
Cityplace at Binondo residential condominium project, the complaint must
ultimately fail for complainants’ lack of personality to file the same.

Section 9 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 957 states that an action to revoke
the registration of any subdivision project or condominium project and the license
to sell of any subdivision lot or condominium unit may be initiated by this Office,
motu proprio or upon verified complaint filed by a buyer of a condominium unit in
the project whose license to sell and registration certificate is sought to be revoked.
Complainants have filed this verified complaint to cancel/revoke the license to sell
and registration certificate of respondent Megaworld’s Cityplace at Binondo
residential condominium project. However, complainants are not even a buyer of a
unit in the said project. Thus, they have no personality to file the present
complaint.

Complainants do not also have the legal standing to file the present action.
Complainants claim that they are suing in their separate and personal capacity as
taxpayers, citizens and aggrieved owners of a 28-door two-storey commercial
building located in Property A that was demolished to make way for new school
buildings. However, the Cityplace at Binondo residential condominium project
was developed in Property B by respondent Megaworld using its own capital.
There were no public funds or capital involved. Therefore, complainants have no
standing as a taxpayer or citizen to file the present complaint. Moreover,
complainants fail to state how their ownership of the demolished building
translates to interest in filing the present complaint. This Office notes that
complainants’ building was actually located in a property different from the
present location of the Cityplace at Binondo residential condominium project.
Complainants’ building was previously located in Property A. On the other hand,
the Cityplace at Binondo residential condominium project is currently located in
Property B. Legal standing must be alleged and proved. Complainants have no
direct and substantial interest affected by the Cityplace at Binondo residential
condominium project. Ultimately, complainants have no standing to file the
present complaint.

As to the third issue, there is no ground to cancel the certificate of

registration, license to sell and development permit issued by this Office for the
Cityplace at Binondo residential condominium project. Respondent Megaworld
submitted all the necessary requirements provided by Section 4 of PD No. 957 for
the issuance of the certificate of registration and license to sell for the said project.