THIRD DIVISION
|
MA. ELIZABETH KING AND MARY ANN KING, Petitioners, - versus - |
G.R.
No. 162895 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA,
and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. |
|
MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES AND HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent. |
Promulgated: |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This is
a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1]
dated
Petitioners purchased one unit of the
Sherwood Heights Townhouse from respondent.[4] A year after, cracks and leaks appeared in
the perimeter fence of the unit. On the
request of petitioners, respondent’s engineers repaired the fence. Four months after, the same cracks and leaks
reappeared. The petitioners requested that
the affected area of the fence be demolished, and a stronger foundation with
better construction materials be built. Because
of respondent’s failure to repair the fence, rainwater seeped through the wall
and the floor. Various insects also
proliferated. This prompted petitioners
to institute a complaint before the HLURB Expanded National Capital Region
Field Office. They alleged violation of
warranty and prayed for the revocation of petitioner’s certificate and license
to sell, moral and exemplary damages, and execution of the necessary repairs.[5]
The HLURB Arbiter
found that the cracks and leaks were caused by the soft soil movement of the adjacent
property. Further, the Arbiter also
found that the additional load from the converted lanai area, which was altered
without the consent of respondent as required in the deed of restrictions,[6]
aggravated the cracks. He also found
that said cracks and leaks were superficial and did not affect the structural integrity
of the main structure.[7]
Since respondent had already
completed the soil stabilization measure of the adjoining lot even before the
termination of the case,[8] the
Arbiter merely directed respondent to repair the cracks and leaks, and pay
petitioners P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees.[9] He did not award moral damages since
petitioners failed to prove fraud and bad faith.[10]
Petitioners went to the Board of
Commissioners reiterating the same appeal before the Expanded National Capital
Region Field Office. After the case was
submitted for decision, they amended their prayer and asked for payment of
actual damages and the refund of all payments made in the purchase of the unit. They also moved for the presentation of supplemental
evidence, in the form of VHS tape, without furnishing respondent a copy of the
tape. The Board granted the motion but did
not give respondent an opportunity to examine and authenticate the contents of
the tape.
On P120,000.00
as moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.[11]
On appeal, the Office of the President ruled
that the cracks and leaks appearing in the perimeter fence did not affect the
structural integrity of the townhouse, and that there was no proof of fraud or
bad faith on the part of the respondents.
It set aside the Board’s decision and affirmed the Arbiter.[12]
Petitioners sought reconsideration but it
was denied.[13]
When petitioners appealed, the appellate
court denied the petition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration based
on its finding that the townhouse and its foundation were structurally sound.
Petitioners now come before us
raising the following issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE FINDING OF FACTS BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
NOT APPLYING ARTICLE 1173 OF THE CIVIL CODE.[14]
Simply
stated, the issues for our resolution are the following: (1) Did the cracks
and leaks in the perimeter fence affect the structural integrity of the unit to
justify the refund of petitioners’ payments for the unit? (2) Are petitioners entitled to moral and
exemplary damages?
Petitioners
aver that respondent breached the warranty of the townhouse when it used substandard
materials. They maintain that the cracks
and leaks, which were caused by the soft soil movement of the adjacent lot,
could have been prevented if the respondent executed the soil stabilization of
the adjacent lot prior to the construction of the townhouse and the perimeter
fence. Petitioners insist that respondent
should be held liable for moral and exemplary damages because of its negligence.
For
its part, respondent does not contest that the cracks and leaks in the
perimeter fence were caused by the soft soil movement of the adjacent lot. Nonetheless, it maintains that the townhouse
unit has its own independent foundation separate and distinct from the
perimeter fence and is not affected by the loosening of the soil of the
adjacent lot. It also maintains that the
cracks did not affect the structural integrity of the main house. It declares that it had already completed the
soil stabilization measure for the perimeter fence, and is willing to do the
necessary repairs. In sum, it should not
be made to refund the purchase price.
Respondent further
claims it is not liable for moral and exemplary damages. Petitioners have not shown that respondent intended
to do wrong, cause damage, employ fraud, or act in bad faith. It points out that petitioners did not
present any expert witness nor a structural engineer to support their claim.
Prefatorily,
we reiterate the well-settled rule that, when supported by substantial evidence
and absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness,
findings of fact of administrative agencies, especially when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[15] After study of the evidence on record, we find
no reason to depart from this rule.
Under the
original plan, the perimeter fence was not part of the townhouse. It was attached to the main unit when the
lanai area was converted into an indoor dining room. This renovation was without prior consent of
the respondent as required in the deed of restrictions appended to the deed of
sale. Hence, in determining the
townhouse’s structural soundness, only the original structure should be the
point of reference.
There is
nothing on record to show that the original structure was unstable. One who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it.[16] Aside from the pictures and videos of the
cracked perimeter fence, petitioners did not present any other evidence. These pictures and videos are insufficient to
show that the townhouse’s foundation was structurally defective. The cracks could be merely superficial. Other than that, the presumption is that there
was no irregularity regarding the approval of the building plan. Moreover, respondent presented an affidavit
of a structural engineer attesting that the cracks and leaks on the perimeter
fence do not affect the structural integrity of the townhouse. Absent any showing that the townhouse structure
was unstable and unsafe for habitation, petitioners are not entitled to a
refund.
For moral and
exemplary damages to be awarded, the party must prove
bad faith. Otherwise, the presumption of good faith must be upheld.[17] In this case, the petitioners failed to prove
their allegation of bad faith. Hence, we
cannot award moral and exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
The Decision dated
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 29-43. Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III, and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Ibid.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Utto v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 150111,
[16] Matugas v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 151944,
[17] Andrade v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 127932,