Scribd
Upload
407 views

11.mapa vs. Arroyo

This case involves a dispute between Mapa and Labrador Development Corporation over Mapa's default on installment payments for lots purchased from Labrador. [1] Mapa claimed that under Presidential Decree 957, Labrador was obligated to provide water and electrical facilities to the lots. [2] However, the court ruled that P.D. 957 and its implementing rules did not form part of the sale contracts between Mapa and Labrador. [3] While Clause 20 of the contracts referenced subdivision development and improvements, it did not incorporate the specific requirements of P.D. 957 that Mapa relied on.

Uploaded by

Kate Bianca Caindoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
407 views

11.mapa vs. Arroyo

This case involves a dispute between Mapa and Labrador Development Corporation over Mapa's default on installment payments for lots purchased from Labrador. [1] Mapa claimed that under Presidential Decree 957, Labrador was obligated to provide water and electrical facilities to the lots. [2] However, the court ruled that P.D. 957 and its implementing rules did not form part of the sale contracts between Mapa and Labrador. [3] While Clause 20 of the contracts referenced subdivision development and improvements, it did not incorporate the specific requirements of P.D. 957 that Mapa relied on.

Uploaded by

Kate Bianca Caindoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Mapa vs. Arroyo, G.R. No.

78585, July 5, 1989

FACTS:

Mapa vs. Arroyo G.R. No. 78585 July 5, 1989 Regalado, J. FACTS: Mapa bought lots from
Labrador Development Corporation (Labrador) payable in ten years. Mapa defaulted to pay the
installment dues and continued to do so despite constant reminders by Labrador. The latter
informed Mapa that the contracts to sell the lots were cancelled, but Mapa invoked Clause 20
of the four contracts. Said clause obligates Labrador to complete the development of the lots,
except those requiring the services of a public utility company or the government, within 3
years from the date of the contract.

Mapa filed a complaint against Labrador for the latter's neglect to put 1) a water system that
meets the minimum standard as specified by HSRC, and 2) electrical power supply. By way of
relief, Mapa requested the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) to direct
Labrador to provide the facilities aforementioned, and to issue a cease and desist order
enjoining Labrador from cancelling the contracts to sell.

After an onsite inspection Office of Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) dismissed the
complaint and declaring that 'after the lapse of 5 years from complainant's default
respondent had every right to rescind the contract pursuant to Clause 7.

The Commission Proper, HSRC, affirmed the decision of OAALA,


Hence, this civil action for certiorari

CONTENTION PETITIONER :

P.D. 957 requires Labrador to provide the “facilities, improvements, and infrastructures for the
lots, and other forms of development” if offered and indicated in the approved subdivision
plans.

CONTENTION RESPONDENT:

ISSUES:
W/N the provisions of PD 957 and its implementing rules form part of the contracts to sell
executed by petitioner and respondent corporation?

RULING:

NO. Petitioner's insistence on the applicability of Presidential Decree No. 957 must be
rejected and reject petitioner's strained and tenuous application of the so-called doctrine of
last antecedent in the interpretation of Section 20 and, correlatively, of Section 21.
Presidential Decree No. 957 and its implementing rules. The specific provisions of the Decree
which are persistently relied upon read:
"SEC. 20. Time of Completion. Every owner or developer shall construct and provide the
facilities, improvements, infrastructures and other forms of development, including water
supply and lighting facilities, which are offered and indicated in the approved subdivision or
condominium plans, brochures, prospectus, printed matters, letters or in any form of
advertisements, within one year from the date of the issuance of the license for the subdivision
or condominium project or such other period of time as may be fixed by the Authority.
"SEC. 21. Sales Prior to Decree. In cases of subdivision lots or condominium units sold or
disposed of prior to the effectivity of this Decree, it shall be incumbent upon the owner or
developer of the subdivision or condominium project to complete compliance with his or its
obligations as provided in the preceding section within two years from the date of this Decree
unless otherwise extended by the Authority or unless an adequate performance bond is filed in
accordance with Section 6 hereof.
"Failure of the owner or developer to comply with the obligations under this and the preceding
provisions shall constitute a violation punishable under Sections 38 and 39 of this Decree."
Rule V of the implementing rules, on the other hand, requires two (2) sources of electric
power, two (2) deepwell and pump sets with a specified capacity and two standard fire hose
flows with a capacity of 175 gallons per minute.
The provision, in said contracts to sell which, according to petitioner, includes and incorporates
the a forequoted statutory provisions, is Clause 20 of said contracts which provides:

"Clause 20 ---- SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT ---- To insure the physical development of the
subdivision, the SELLER hereby obliges itself to provide the individual lot buyer with the
following:
a) PAVED ROADS
b) UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE
c) CONCRETE CURBS AND GUTTERS
d) WATER SYSTEM
e) PARK AND OPEN SPACE.
"All improvements except those requiring the services of a public utility company or the
government shall be completed within a period of three (3) years from date of this contract.
Failure by the SELLER to reasonably comply with the above schedule shall permit the
BUYER/S to suspend his monthly installments without any penalties or interest charges until
such time that these improvements shall have been made as scheduled.

In the case at bar, He would thereby have the enumeration of "facilities, improvements,
infrastructures and other forms of development" interpreted to mean that the demonstrative
phrase "which are offered and indicated in the approved subdivision plans, etc." refer only to
"other forms of development" and not to "facilities, improvements and infrastructures." While
this subserves his purpose, such bifurcation, whereby the supposed adjectival phrase is set
apart from the antecedent words, is illogical and erroneous. The complete and applicable rule is
ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sentencia. .
Relative words refer to the nearest antecedent, unless it be prevented by the context. In the
present case, the employment of the word "and" between "facilities, improvements,
infrastructures" and "other forms of development," far from supporting petitioner's theory,
enervates it instead since it is basic in legal hermeneutics that "and" is not meant to separate
words but is a conjunction used to denote a joinder or union.

In conclusion, if ever there is any valid ground to suspend the monthly installments due from
petitioner, it would only be based on non-performance of the obligations provided in Clause 20
of the contract, particularly the alleged non-construction of the cul-de-sac. But, even this is
unavailing and is obviously being used only to justify petitioner's default. The on-site inspection
of the subdivision conducted by the OAALA and its subsequent report reveal that Labrador
substantially complied with its obligation.

You might also like