PHINMA PROPERTY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JOSHUA C. RIVERA, RESPONDENT.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 261877
- Promulgated: 2025-07-16
- Ponente: GAERLAN, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Phinma Property Holdings Corporation (Phinma) and Joshua C. Rivera (Rivera) entered into a Contract to Sell for Unit M in Hacienda Balai Condominium. Rivera paid equity and moved into the unit after settling move-in fees. He also made improvements to the unit. Shortly after moving in, Rivera noticed significant defects, including cracks in walls, water seepage, molds, and insect infestation. He also discovered that advertised amenities like the swimming pool, playground, and parking area were unavailable and replaced with other buildings. Rivera reported the issues to the Department of the Building Official of Quezon City, which subsequently issued an order declaring Hacienda Balai dangerous and ruinous and advised occupants to vacate. Phinma sought reconsideration and an extension for project development, which was granted by the HLURB-NCR-FO until June 30, 2020, with the caveat that it was "without prejudice to the buyers' rights under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 957". Rivera then filed a complaint with the HLURB-NCR-FO seeking a full refund of his payments, including equity, HDMF monthly amortizations, cost of improvements, and move-in fees, along with damages and attorney's fees. The HLURB Arbiter and the HSAC Board of Commissioners ruled in favor of Rivera, ordering Phinma to refund Rivera's payments, buy back his loan, and pay attorney's fees and costs of litigation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the HSAC Decision. ## Issues 1. Is Rivera entitled to a refund of all amounts paid to Phinma, including equity, HDMF monthly amortizations, move-in fees, and cost of improvements, due to Phinma's failure to complete the development of Hacienda Balai project? 2. Is Rivera estopped from claiming a refund based on his awareness of the extension for project development and his signing of the "Certificate of Inspection and Unit Acceptance"? 3. Is Rivera entitled to attorney's fees and costs of suit, and moral and exemplary damages? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** **Rivera is entitled to a refund of the equity and HDMF monthly amortizations, but not the move-in fees and cost of improvements.** The Court held that **Presidential Decree No. 957 (P.D. 957)**, specifically Section 23, grants buyers the right to a refund of payments if the developer fails to complete the project on time. Phinma admitted the non-completion of the project by requesting an extension, and the extension itself was "without prejudice to the rights of buyers under Section 23." However, the Court clarified that **Section 23** does not cover all amounts paid or spent by the buyer, but only "installment payments made by a buyer in a subdivision or condominium project for the lot or unit he contracted to buy." Based on the maxim **expressio unius est exclusio alterius**, the express mention of "amortization interests" and "delinquency interests" in the provision indicates that the refund pertains to amortization payments. The move-in fees (administrative processing fee, city engineer fee, construction bond, Meralco service deposit, one-time condominium corporation registration/membership fee, temporary power service charge, and water service deposit) and the cost of improvements are not amortization payments for the purchase of the unit and are therefore not refundable under Section 23. The Court cited **Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Spouses Go** where a refund under Section 23 was limited to total amortizations paid. **Issue 2:** **Rivera is not estopped from claiming a refund.** The Court found that the requisites for estoppel were not met. First, Rivera's silence or failure to object to Phinma's request for an extension does not bar him from exercising his rights under Section 23, especially since the extension was granted without prejudice to buyers' rights. Second, there was no intent by Rivera to cause undue harm or mislead Phinma. Third, Rivera did not remain silent; he actively pursued his claims through formal channels…
Keywords
Presidential Decree No. 957 Section 20, Presidential Decree No. 957 Section 23, Presidential Decree No. 1096 Section 214, Presidential Decree No. 1096 Section 215, Civil Code Article 2208(2), Estoppel in Pais, Estoppel by Laches, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius, Condominium Project Development, Buyer’s Rights, Contract to Sell, Housing and Land Use, Refunds for Unfinished Projects, Amortization Payments, Legal Interest, Attorney’s Fees, Certiorari, Contract of Adhesion, Moral Damages, Exemplary Damages