HLURB_2[1]

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 LeonNotary Public of MuntinlupaCommission Serial No. 0808Until Dec. 31, 2011Roll of Attorney No. 777777MCLE 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

Atty. Robert De Leon

#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 BinayNotary Public of Pasay City

Commission Serial No. 3968Until Dec. 31, 2012Roll of Attorney No. 156IBP No. L-594837PTR No. 685







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;

x x x x

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.

Atty. Robert De LeonNotary Public of MuntinlupaCommission Serial No. 0808Until Dec. 31, 2011Roll of Attorney No. 777777MCLE Compliance No. 10101010







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.

Atty. Robert De LeonNotary Public of MuntinlupaCommission Serial No. 0808

Until Dec. 31, 2011Roll of Attorney No. 777777MCLE Compliance No. 10101010




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

Documents

HLURB_2[1]