Atty. Reyes G. Geromo, Florencio Buentipo, Jr., Ernaldo Yambot and Lydia Bustamante, petitioners Vs. La Paz Housing and Development Corporation and Government Service Insurance System, respondents.
G.R. No. 211175
January 18, 2017
Facts:
Year 1987, Atty. Geromo, Bustamante and Yambot started occupying their respective residential units from Adelina 1−A subdivision in San Pedro, Laguna from La Paz, through GSIS financing. The properties were all situated along the old Litlit Creek. Buentipo, on the other hand, opted to demolish the turned over unit and build a new structure thereon. After more than two (2) years of occupation, cracks started to appear on the floor and walls on their houses. The petitioners, through the President of the Adelina 1−A Homeowners Association, requested La Paz, being the owner/developer to take remedial action. They collectively decided to construct a riprap/retaining wall in which La Paz contributed p3,000 for each but petitioners claimed that despite of this retaining wall, the condition of their housing units worsened as the years passed. La Paz alleged that the structural defects could have been caused by the 1990 earthquake. Year 1998, the petitioners decided to leave their housing units.
May 2002, upon the request of the petitioners, the Municipal Engineer of San Pedro and the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) conducted an ocular inspection of the subject properties. They found that there was “differential settlement of the area where the affected units were constructed”. On the basis thereof, Atty. Geromo filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages against La Paz and GSIS before Housing and Land Regulatory Board (HLURB) on May 3, 2003, Buentipo, Yambot and Bustamante filed a similar complaint against La Paz and GSIS. They asserted that La Paz was liable for implied warranty against hidden defects and it was negligent in building their houses on unstable land. La Paz averred that it had secured the necessary permits and licenses for the subdivision project. The GSIS moved for the dismissal of the complaint for its only participation in the transaction was to grant loans to the petitioners for the purchase of their respective properties.
August 9, 2014 Decision, the HLURB Arbiter found La Paz liable for the structural damage on the petitioners housing units, explaining that the damage was caused by its failure to properly fill and compact the soil on which the houses were built and to maintain (3) meters easement from the edge of the creek as require by law. As to GSIS, the HLURB ruled that GSIS is not liable. September 12, 2005 decision of HLURB Board of Commissioners set aside the Arbiter’s decision. The petitioners move for reconsideration but denied. The aggrieved petitioners elevated the case to Office of the President (OP) which initially dismissed due to late filing. The petitioners question the dismissal before the CA, and the CA ordered the OP to resolve the appeal on the merits. Then the OP finally rendered a decision dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. The petitioners appealed the OP decision on CA, but the CA affirmed the ruling of the OP. The petitioners moved for reconsideration but denied.
Issue:
Whether La Paz should be held liable for the structural defects on its implied warranty against hidden defects.
Held:
Yes, La Paz is liable for the structural defects on its implied warranty against hidden defects.
Under Civil Code Article 1561, The vendor shall be responsible for warranty against the hidden defects which the thing sold may have, should they render it unfit for the use for which it is intended, or should they diminish its fitness for such use to such an extent that, had the vendee been aware thereof, he would not have acquired it or would have given a lower price for it; but said vendor shall not be answerable for patent defects or those which may be visible, or for those which are not visible if the vendee is an expert who, by reason of this trade or profession, should have known them. And under Article 1566 of the Civil Code, the vendor is responsible to the vendee for any hidden faults or defects in the thing sold, even though he was not aware thereof. This provision shall not apply if the contrary has been stipulated and the vendor was not aware of the hidden faults or defects in the thing sold.
Wherefore, the petition is GRANTED. The August 9, 2004 Decision of the HLURD Arbiter is hereby REINSTATED with MODIFICATION to read as follows: (1) Ordering respondent La Paz Housing and Development Corporation to immediately undertake and cause the necessary repairs/construction of the subject units to make it suitable for human habitation for which it was originally intended; (2) In the alternative, if it would no longer possible for the said units to be repaired to make it suitable for human habitation, ordering respondent La Paz to give each petitioner another property of the same nature and size, more or less, within the subdivision project or in any project owned and develop by La Paz in San Pedro, Laguna, or pay the monetary equivalent thereof; and (3) Ordering respondent La Paz to pay each of the petitioners: a. the sum P200,000.00 as temperate damages; b. the sum of P150,000.00 as moral damages; c. the sum of P150,000.00 as exemplary damages; d. the sum of P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and e. cost of suit. All awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the finality of the judgment until full payment, in line with recent jurisprudence. SO ORDERED.
No comments:
Post a Comment