FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236342 February 15, 2022.]
CLARO J. PIÑON, petitioner,vs. MARY ANTOLIN, NANAY ASUNCION, MADELIN MURILLO, GERRY FAJIT, VIRGINIA BARLAAN, AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 15, 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236342 (Claro J. Piñon v. Mary Antolin, Nanay Asuncion, Madelin Murillo, Gerry Fajit, Virginia Barlaan, and All Persons Claiming Rights under Them). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the August 3, 2017 Decision 2 and the December 14, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148547. The CA upheld the Decision 4 dated July 29, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the January 8, 2016 Decision 5 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) involving a complaint for recovery of possession of real property and damages in Civil Case No. 8023. In its assailed Decision and Resolution, the CA ruled in favor of Mary Antolin, Nanay Asuncion, Madelin Murillo, Gerry Fajit, Virginia Barlaan, and all persons claiming rights under them (respondents), thereby dismissing the case filed by Claro Piñon (petitioner) on account of his failure to comply with the proviso annotated in the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-85379.
As culled from the decisions of the CA and the RTC, this Court finds the following factual and procedural antecedents sufficiently established:
x x x Top Service, Inc. is the owner and developer of Golden Acres Subdivision located at Barangay Talon 5, Las Piñas City. The subject property is located in said subdivision specifically at Block 4, Lot 1-A, along Candido Ramos Avenue on one side and Marcos Alvarez on the other side. It has an area of 766 square meters and registered in [Top Service, Inc.'s] name under Transfer Certificate of Title [TCT] No. T-85379. It is also registered for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. E-017-14356. Under Entry No. 1573-18 of said title, the subject property had been designated as open space of Golden Acres Subdivision. Aside from the subject property, comprising also the open space of said subdivision is Lot 1-B which is adjacent to it and with a bigger area of 3,447 square meters, thereby making the entire open space of the subdivision with a total area of 4,213 square meters. Said open space is presently under the control and possession of the Local Government of Las Piñas City and the Golden Acres Subdivision Homeowners Association. It is in the subject property where the Multi-Purpose Hall of Golden Acres Subdivision Homeowners Association stands. [Respondents] are engaged in various retail businesses. In pursuit of their business, they put up their respective retail stores made of concrete and light materials in the subject property with the permission of the Golden Acres Subdivision Homeowners Association from which they derived their right to occupy the subject property as early as the year 2000. On the other hand, Lot 1-B which comprises the bigger area of the open space[,] is being occupied by different offices of the Local Government of Las Piñas City.
In the year 2003, Top Service, Inc. wanted to retake possession of the subject property. Thus, its lawyer sent to each of the [respondents] demand letters dated May 30, 2003 demanding them to vacate the subject property. [Respondents] refused to heed the same since the subject property has been designated as open space of Golden Acres Subdivision and it cannot be converted into a private property, unless it has the [approval] of the [Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board] (HLURB) or the court. [Thus, on April 20, 2004,] Top Service, Inc. x x x filed an unlawful detainer suit with the [MeTC] of Las Piñas City x x x wherein the [latter ruled in favor of Top Service, Inc.] x x x [Respondents appealed the case before the RTC [of Las Piñas City], and the latter ruled in favor of respondents]. While the case was still pending further appeal [before] the [CA], Top Service, Inc. sold the subject property to [petitioner] without [CA's] approval. On May 6, 2011, the [CA] affirmed the [D]ecision of the [RTC].
Sometime in the year 2006, Top Service, Inc. filed an application for alteration of plan of Golden Acres Subdivision with the Office of the City Council of Las Piñas City. Said application was approved by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Las Piñas City on October 17, 2006 under City Resolution No. 1936-06. [The said Resolution contains] the approved Alteration Plan[,] in part as follows: "Alteration of Block 4, Lot 1-A covered by TCT No. 85379 registered in the name of Top Service, Inc., with an area of 766 square meters into saleable lots due to its non-existing facility and the location, shape or configuration of the area is unsustainable for development as an open space." The approved alteration Plan also provided for the swap of Lot 4 of Block 4 as the open space in lieu of Lot 1-A of Block 4 which is the subject property.
Considering that on December 30, 2006, Top Service, Inc. sold the subject property to [petitioner], the letter filed the present action to recover possession of the subject property being occupied by the [respondents]. 6
On January 8, 2016, the MeTC rendered its ruling granting possession of the subject property to petitioner, the fallo of which reads: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [petitioner] and against the [respondents] as follows:
1. Granting possession of the subject property to [petitioner] and ordering the [respondents] and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the subject property located at Block 4, Lot 1-A, Candido Ramos avenue, Golden Acres Subdivision, Talon 5, Las Piñas City, Metro Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-85379, and turn over possession thereof to [petitioner]; and
2. Ordering each of the [respondents] to pay the [petitioner] the amount of Five Thousand Pesos [P5,000.00] per month as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the subject property commencing on March 13, 2012 until they shall have vacated the same; and
3. Ordering all the [respondents] to pay jointly and severally the [petitioner] the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos [P50,000.00] as attorney's fees plus the cost of suit.
[Respondents'] counterclaim is dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 7
The MeTC found that the subject property was converted to a saleable lot in accordance with City Resolution No. 1936-06 dated October 17, 2006, which was passed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Las Piñas City. Since there is no doubt that petitioner is the lawful owner of the subject property, he is entitled to possession.
Thereafter, respondents filed an appeal before the RTC. On July 29, 2016, the RTC rendered its Decision reversing the MeTC. The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE premises considered, appeal is hereby GRANTED. This case is hereby ordered DISMISSED for failure of the [petitioner] to comply with the proviso annotated in the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-85379. The Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 79, Las Piñas City dated January 8, 2016 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED. 8
The RTC held that TCT No. 85379 contains an encumbrance which provides for only two ways to close or dispose any portion of the street, passageway or open space: (a) thru a donation in favor of a city, province or municipality; or (b) thru the permission of the HLURB and the duly organized homeowners of the majority of the lot buyers in the subdivision, in the absence of duly organized homeowners. The RTC ruled that there was a violation of the encumbrance contained in TCT No. 85379 because the subject property was neither donated to the City of Las Piñas nor disposed with the permission of the HLURB and the duly organized homeowners. For this reason, City Resolution No. 1936-06, which approved the alteration of plan, violated the encumbrance of the subject property or the designated open space. 9 The RTC concluded that the subsequent sale of the subject property was unenforceable.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 10 which was denied in an Order dated November 16, 2016.
Thereafter, petitioner elevated the matter before the CA, which affirmed the RTC Decision, in its Decision dated August 3, 2017. 11
The CA found that the power to approve alteration of open spaces contained in subdivision plans is not among the powers of the HLURB that were devolved to cities and municipalities 12 as provided under Section 1 13 of E.O. No. 71. Consequently, such power was retained by the HLURB. This is in accordance with Section 22 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957, which provides:
SECTION 22. Alteration of Plans. — No owner or developer shall change or alter the roads, open spaces, infrastructures, facilities for public use and/or other form of subdivision development as contained in the approved subdivision plan and/or represented in its advertisements, without the permission of the Authority and the written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association, or in the absence of the latter, by the majority of the lot buyers in the subdivision. 14
The CA also found that the Sangguniang Panlungsod ofLas Piñas City's Resolution No. 1936-06 expressly recognized that the approval of the alteration plan is subject to the condition that Section 1 of P.D. No. 957 shall be complied with, which reads:
SECTION 1. The application for Alteration of Plan of Top Service, Incorporated for its project designated as golden Acres, situated along Talon I, Las Piñas City is hereby approved subject to the following conditions, to wit:
A. FOR ALTERATION PERMIT;
xxx xxx xxx
3) Pertinent provisions of PD 957, BP 220 and PD 1096 and their implementing rules and regulations shall be complied with; 15
The CA pointed out that even if it overlooked HLURB's authority to approve the alteration of open space in subdivision plans and recognized the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Las Piñas City's Resolution No. 1936-06, Top Service would not be able to dispose the open space in Golden Acres Subdivision in favor of petitioner. 16
Section 1 of City Resolution No. 1936-06 provides for another condition for the approval of the alteration of the plan of the subject property, which is, that Top Service shall donate the lots covered by TCT Nos. 76691, 82878, 84130 and a portion of the lot covered by TCT No. 76690 to the City Government of Las Piñas, within six months from the issuance of the City Resolution. While petitioner claims that Top Service donated the subject properties to the City Government of Las Piñas, nothing from the records would show that the donation of the aforementioned properties were made in a public instrument. Since the donation was not proved to be made in a public instrument, the donation was unenforceable. Clearly, the donation, designated as one of the conditions for the approval of the alteration of the plan of Golden Acres Subdivision was not complied with. 17
Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated December 14, 2017. 18
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. DETACa
Issues
I.
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC in finding that the alteration of subdivision plan is not among the powers devolved to the local government unit;
II.
Whether the CA erred in affirming the nullification of City Resolution No. 1936-06.
Petitioner argues that with the passage of the Local Government Code, certain powers of the HLURB were devolved to the local government units, including functions pertaining to the approval of subdivision plans. 19 City of Las Piñas had the power and authority to act on such application for alteration of subdivision plans.
Petitioner also avers that Top Service, Inc. duly applied for alteration of its subdivision plan with the City of Las Piñas, in accordance with existing laws and regulations. 20 After Top Service, Inc. complied with the requirements mandated by existing laws and regulations, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Las Piñas City passed City Resolution No. 1936-06 on October 17, 2006. With the said Resolution, the property covered by TCT No. T-85379 became a saleable lot, as a result of the alteration of Golden Acres subdivision plan. On the other hand, the lots covered by TCT Nos. 76691, 82878, 84130 and portion of 76690 became Block 4, Lot 4, which will be the open space in lieu of the lot covered by TCT No. T-85379. 21
Petitioner stresses that with the passage of City Resolution No. 1936-06 dated October 17, 2006, the subject property was made a saleable lot and granted to Top Service, Inc., by way of exchange or swap. 22 Further, even in the absence of a Deed of Donation, petitioner's subsequent acquisition of the subject property is valid and binding. 23Firstly, Top Service, Inc. has complied with the conditions of the subject City Resolution. As regards the donation and delivery of the new open space, Top Service, Inc. submitted before the CA the Certification dated February 15, 2017 issued by the City of Las Piñas. The said certification attested that the donated properties are already in the possession and being used by the City of Las Piñas. 24Secondly, petitioner points out that since City Resolution No. 1936-06 is a valid law, the subsequent conveyance of the subject property to petitioner is valid and binding because the latter is a purchaser in good faith. 25 Petitioner also avers that since no case had been filed or initiated to declare City Resolution No. 1936-06 as invalid, the said local law is presumed to be valid. According to petitioner, a collateral attack on a presumably valid law is not allowed. 26
Lastly, petitioner argues that the nullification of City Resolution No. 1936-06 would result to injustice, and would be detrimental to the constituents of the City of Las Piñas. The lots covered by TCT Nos. 76691, 82878, 84130 and portion of 76690 were already delivered to the City Government of Las Piñas. The latter took possession and ownership of the same, and has already constructed therein a Multi-purpose Hall, a basketball court, Barangay Health Center and Barangay Talon 1 extension office. According to petitioner, if these properties would revert back to its previous status of being saleable lots by indirectly invalidating City Resolution No. 1936-06, then all the government offices and facilities constructed must be removed and transferred to the lot covered by TCT No. T-85379, the latter being reverted as an open space. 27
In their Comment, 28 respondents sought for the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit. City Resolution No. 1936-06 of Las Piñas City, which approved the alteration of a portion of Lot 1-A designated as open space for Golden Acres Subdivision, is illegal and unenforceable. The City Council approved the alteration ex-parte, without notice and participation of the HLURB, Golden Acres Homeowners Association and the respondents who have been, by law occupying partially said lot and deriving rights from the Homeowners Association. There was also no public hearing conducted, as demanded by due process. Respondents add that they were only made aware of the subject City Resolution when petitioner furnished them a copy of TCT No. T-85379, after filing the ejectment case. 29
City Resolution No. 1936-06 also violated the encumbrance annotated in TCT No. T-85379 which provides that "no portion of any street, passageway or open space so delineated on the plan shall be closed or otherwise disposed without the permission of the HLURB and the duly organized homeowners or in the absence of the latter, by the majority of the lot buyer in the [subdivision]." 30
Respondents further argue that the power to approve alteration of open space contained in subdivision plans is not among those powers devolved to local government units because it is not one of the devolved powers under Section 1 of E.O. No. 71. 31 Respondents stress that the subject City Resolution recognized the authority of the HLURB to approve alteration of open spaces in subdivision plans. Section 1 (A) of the said City Resolution states that "pertinent provisions of PD 957, BP 220 and PD 1096 and their Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be complied with." 32
Furthermore, respondents point out that petitioner failed to comply with the pre-conditions set forth by the City Council granting the alteration on October 17, 2006.
Respondents aver that petitioner's claims that Top Service, Inc. had already donated the said lots to the City Government of Las Piñas and are now being utilized by the latter are untrue and misleading. This is because the lot being used by the City Government of Las Piñas up to the present, is Lot 1-B, a part of the 4,213 square-meter lot, adjoining Lot 1-A. In short, the lots allegedly swapped are not being occupied by the City government offices. There is also no evidence on record to show that petitioner has executed the required donation. 33
On October 2, 2018, petitioner filed his Reply. 34 Reiterating his previous arguments. For the first time, he alleges that there was a Deed of Donation covering the lots covered by TCT Nos. 76691, 82878, 84130, and 76690, and attached the Deed of Donation 35 of the said lots. 36 The attached Deed of Donation was executed in December 2006, without specifying the particular day. aDSIHc
On November 5, 2018, respondents filed their Rejoinder. 37 In addition to their reiteration of their arguments in their Comment, they stress that the Deed of Donation attached to petitioner's Reply is incredible and does not deserve attention because it was presented for the first time, before this Court. The respondents emphasize that the RTC in its Decision dated July 29, 2016 found that Top Service, Inc. failed to execute a Deed of Donation over the lots in favor of the City Government of Las Piñas allegedly "swapped" with TCT No. T-85379 within the six (6)-month period provided under City Resolution No. 1939-06. Petitioner never presented any proof of the Deed of Donation before the lower courts from January 2007 up to the filing of this instant petition. 38
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
The alteration of subdivision
Section 1 of E.O. 71 enumerates the HLURB's powers that were devolved to cities and municipalities, to wit:
SECTION 1. Cities and municipalities shall heretofore assume the powers of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) over the following:
(a) Approval of preliminary as well as final subdivision schemes and development plans of all subdivisions, residential, commercial, industrial and for other purposes of the public and private sectors, in accordance with the provisions of P.D. No. 957 as amended and its implementing standards, rules and regulations concerning approval of subdivision plans;
(b) Approval of preliminary and final subdivision schemes and development plans of all economic and socialized housing projects as well as individual or group building and occupancy permits covered by BP 220 and its implementing standards, rules and regulations;
(c) Evaluation and resolution of opposition against the issuance of development permits for any of the said projects, in accordance with the said laws and the Rules of Procedure promulgated by HLURB incident thereto;
(d) Monitoring the nature and progress of land development of projects it has approved, as well as housing construction in the case of house and lot packages, to ensure their faithfulness to the approved plans and specifications thereof, and, imposition of appropriate measures to enforce compliance therewith.
In the exercise of such responsibilities, the city or municipality concerned shall be guided by the work program approved by the Board upon evaluation of the developers' financial, technical and administrative capabilities;
Moreover, the city or municipality concerned may call on the Board for assistance in the imposition of administrative sanctions and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the institution of the criminal proceedings against violators;
(e) Assessment and collection of fees incident to the foregoing. 39
Under the same law, Section 2 expressly states that "[t]he HLURB shall retain such powers and functions not otherwise expressly provided herein or under existing laws." 40
On the other hand, Section 22 of P.D. No. 957 provides:
Section 22. Alteration of Plans. — No owner or developer shall change or alter the roads, open spaces, infrastructures, facilities for public use and/or other form of subdivision development as contained in the approved subdivision plan and/or represented in its advertisements, without the permission of the [National Housing] Authority and the written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association, or in the absence of the latter, by the majority of the lot buyers in the subdivision.
Settled is the principle that "when the law makes an enumeration, those not included are excluded." 41 It can be gleaned from the said provisions that the power to alter subdivision plans is not one of the devolved powers of the HLURB. Rather, the alteration of subdivision plans must fulfill the following requirements: (1) it must have the permission of the National Housing Authority (NHA); and (2) there has to be a written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association, or in the latter's absence, by the majority of the lot buyers in the subdivision.
In relation to Sections 1 and 2 of E.O. No. 71 and Section 22 of P.D. No. 957, this Court also finds that the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Las Piñas City's Resolution No. 1936-06 expressly states that its approval of the alteration plan is subject to the condition of compliance with Section 1 of P.D. No. 957, which reads:
SECTION 1. The application for Alteration of Plan of Top Service, Incorporated for its project designated as Golden Acres, situated along Talon I, Las Piñas City is hereby approved subject to the following conditions, to wit:
B. FOR ALTERATION PERMIT;
xxx xxx xxx
3) Pertinent provisions of PD 957, BP 220 and PD 1096 and their implementing rules and regulations shall be complied with; 42
In this case, there was no evidence presented before the courts to establish that the two requirements under Section 22 of P.D. No. 957 was complied with.
On the issue of the validity of City's Resolution No. 1936-06, suffice it to state that said Resolution cannot be attacked collaterally in an action for recovery of possession of real property, hence presumed valid. This is in accordance with the settled principle that "the constitutionality or validity of laws, orders, or such other rules with the force of law cannot be attacked collaterally." 43 Unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, there is a legal presumption of validity of these law and rules. 44 ETHIDa
Ruling on the legal presumption that City Resolution No. 1936-06 is valid, the Court affirms the findings of the RTC and the CA that Top Service, Inc. failed to comply with the pre-conditions set forth by the City Council:
1. Submission of altered subdivision plan to the Land Management Bureau for approval and the Registry of Deeds of Las Piñas City for re-titling of the affected areas;
2. Verification and approval of the field survey returns from the Registry of Deeds. Upon approval, the same shall be re-applied to this office for the registration and issuance of license to sell;
3. Secure Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR prior to construction and development of the project;
4. Top Service, Inc. failed to donate the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-76691, 82878, 84130 and 76690 to the City Government of Las Piñas supposedly within six (6) months from October 17, 2006 and up to now. 45
No evidence was presented before the lower courts to prove that Top Service, Inc. complied with the said pre-conditions.
On the issue of donation, the following elements must be present to prove that there was a valid donation of an immovable property:
(a) the essential reduction of the patrimony of the donor; (b) the increase in the patrimony of the donee; (c) the intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi; (d) the donation must be contained in a public document; and (e) that the acceptance thereof be made in the same deed or in a separate public instrument; if acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor must be notified thereof in an authentic form, to be noted in both instruments. 46
Here, the petitioner, in his attempt to prove that there was a valid donation of the lots covered by several TCTs, attached a Deed of Donation. For the first time, petitioner attached the Deed of Donation when he filed his Reply before this Court. It took petitioner 11 years, from the time that the action before the MeTC was filed in 2007 up to the filing of the petition before this Court in 2018, to attach the alleged Deed of Donation. We cannot give weight or probative value to the said Deed of Donation. Petitioner's act of attaching the Deed of Donation to his Reply filed before this Court was a belated attempt to rectify and to prove that donation actually took place. In addition, the Court, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive. 47 This Court cannot entertain questions of fact such as the existence and genuineness of a Deed of Donation. The Court therefore adopts the findings of the RTC in its Decision dated July 29, 2016 that Top Service, Inc. failed to execute a Deed of Donation over the lots in favor of the City Government of Las Piñas within the six (6)-month period provided under City Resolution No. 1936-06.
This Court finds that the non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions set forth under City Resolution No. 1936-06 will neither prejudice the petitioner nor be detrimental to the constituents of the City of Las Piñas. There is no swapping of lots to be done. Assuming that the swap would be undertaken, it will not prejudice the petitioner and the constituents of the City of Las Piñas because the lot involved is Lot 1-A and not Lot 1-B. Further, respondents who are occupying Lot 1-B are not being ejected. As for the permanent structures of the City Government of Las Piñas, these are also located at Lot 1-B.
For these reasons, the Court finds the petition lacking in merit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 3, 2017, and the Resolution dated December 14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148547 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 24-39.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, and Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios concurring; id. at 40-49.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., and Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser concurring; id. at 51-52.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Lorna Navarro Domingo; id. at 65-69.
5. Penned by Judge Ralph S. Arellano; id. at 53-64.
6. Id. at 41-42.
7. Id. at 64.
8. Id. at 69.
9. Id. at 43-44.
10. Id. at 44.
11. Id. at 49.
12. Id. at 46.
13. Devolution of Powers of the HLURB to Approve Subdivision Plans to Cities and Municipalities, Executive Order No. 71, March 23, 1993. §1.
SECTION 1. Cities and municipalities shall heretofore assume the powers of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) over the following:
a. Approval of preliminary as well as final subdivision schemes and development plans of all subdivisions, residential, commercial, industrial and for other purposes of the public and private sectors, in accordance with the provisions of P.D. No. 957 as amended and its implementing standards, rules and regulations concerning approval of subdivision plans;
b. Approval of preliminary and final subdivision schemes and development plans of all economic and socialized housing projects as well as individual or group building and occupancy permits covered by BP 220 and its implementing standards, rules and regulations;
c. Evaluation and resolution of opposition against the issuance of development permits for any of the said projects, in accordance with the said laws and the Rules of Procedure promulgated by HLURB incident thereto;
d. Monitoring the nature and progress of land development of projects it has approved, as well as housing construction in the case of house and lot packages, to ensure their faithfulness to the approved plans and specifications thereof, and, imposition of appropriate measures to enforce compliance therewith.
In the exercise of such responsibilities, the city or municipality concerned shall be guided by the work program approved by the Board upon evaluation of the developers' financial, technical and administrative capabilities;
Moreover, the city or municipality concerned may call on the Board for assistance in the imposition of administrative sanctions and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the institution of the criminal proceedings against violators;
e. Assessment and collection of fees incident to the foregoing.
14. Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protection Decree, Presidential Decree No. 957, July 12, 1976.
15. Rollo, p. 81.
16. Id. at 48.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 52.
19. Id. at 30.
20. Id.
21. Id. at 31.
22. Id. at 32.
23. Id. at 36.
24. Id. at 32-33.
25. Id. at 36.
26. Id. at 33.
27. Id. at 34-35.
28. Id. at 95-105.
29. Id. at 98-99.
30. Id. at 99.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 81.
33. Id. at 103.
34. Id. at 107-110.
35. Id. at 111-112.
36. Id. at 108.
37. Id. at 114-116.
38. Id. at 114-115.
39. Devolution of Powers of the HLURB to Approve Subdivision Plans to Cities and Municipalities, Executive Order No. 71, March 23, 1993.
40. Id.
41. People v. Fayo, G.R. No. 239887, October 2, 2019.
42. Rollo, p. 81.
43. Palencia v. People, G.R. No. 219560, July 1, 2020.
44. Id.
45. Rollo, pp. 102-103.
46. The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima, et al. v. Alzona, et al., 838 Phil. 283 (2018).
47. Republic of the Philippines v. Bellate, et al., 716 Phil. 60 (2013).