Administrative Administrative Law Case Case Digests Arellano University University School of of Law aiza ebina/2015
CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, INC. vs IGNACIO 5! SCRA 2""
Origin and Development of Administrative Law Growth and Utilization of Administrative Agencies #ACTS$ On April 30, 1998, CGA entered into a Contract to Sell a subdivision lot (subject property) it! t!e
respond respondents ents " t!e re#iste re#istered red oners and develope developers rs o$ a !ousin# !ousin# subdivision subdivision %non as &illa &illa 'riscil 'riscilla la Subdivision located located in aran#ay Cutcut, 'ulilan, ulacan ulacan Accordin# to CGA, it reli#iously paid t!e *ont!ly install*ents install*ents until its ad*inistrative pastor discovered discovered t!at t!e title coverin# t!e subject property su+ered $ro* $atal as and de$ects -nderstandably a##rieved a$ter discoverin# discoverin# t!ese circu*stances, circu*stances, CGA .led a co*plaint a#ainst t!e respondents be$ore t!e /C on April 30, 00 CGA clai*ed t!at t!e respondents $raudulently $raudulently concealed t!e $act t!at t!e subject property property as part o$ a property property under liti#ation2 t!us, t!e Contract to Sell as a rescissible contract under Article 1381 o$ t!e Civil Code CGA as%ed t!e trial court to rescind t!e contract2 order t!e respondents to return t!e a*ounts already paid2 and aard actual, *oral and ee*pl ee*plary ary da*a#es, da*a#es, attorney4s attorney4s $ees $ees and liti#ati liti#ation on epense epenses s 5nstead 5nstead o$ .lin# .lin# an anser, anser, t!e respondents .led a *otion to dis*iss assertin# t!at t!e /C !ad no jurisdiction over t!e case Citin# '6 7o 9 and '6 7o 13::, t!e respondents clai*ed t!at t!e case $alls it!in t!e eclusive jurisdiction o$ t!e ;<-/ since it involved t!e sale o$ a subdivision lot CGA opposed t!e *otion to dis*iss, clai*in# t!at t!e action is $or rescission o$ contract, not speci.c per$or*ance, and is not a*on# t!e actions it!in t!e eclusive jurisdiction o$ t!e ;<-/, as speci.ed by '6 7o 9 and '6 7o 13:: On October 1, 00, t!e /C issued an order denyin# t!e respondents4 *otion to dis*iss !e /C !eld t!at t!at t!e t!e acti action on $or $or resc rescis issi sion on o$ cont contra ract ct and and da*a da*a#e #es s due due to t!e t!e resp respon onde dent nts4 s4 $rau $raudu dule lent nt *isrepr *isrepresen esentati tation on t!at t!ey are t!e ri#!t$ul ri#!t$ul oners o$ t!e subject subject property, property, $ree $ree $ro* $ro* all liens and encu*brances, is outside t!e ;<-/4s jurisdiction !e respondents respondents countered by .lin# a petition $or certiorari it! t!e CA 5n its October 0, 003 decision, t!e CA $ound *erit in t!e respondents4 position and set t!e /C order aside2 t!e CA ruled t!at t!e ;<-/ !ad eclusive jurisdiction over t!e subject *atter o$ t!e co*plaint since it involved a contract to sell a subdivision lot based on t!e provisions o$ '6 7o 9 and '6 7o 13:: Contendin# t!at t!e CA co**itted reversible error, t!e CGA no co*es be$ore t!e Court as%in# us to overturn t!e CA decision and resolution ISS%E$ =!et!er or not an action to rescind a contract to sell a subdivision lot t!at t!e buyer $ound to be
under under liti#ati liti#ation on $alls $alls under under t!e eclusi eclusive ve jurisdic jurisdiction tion o$ t!e ;ousin# ;ousin# and
es !e nature o$ an action and t!e jurisdiction o$ a tribunal are deter*ined by t!e *aterial
alle#ations o$ t!e co*plaint and t!e la #overnin# at t!e ti*e t!e action as co**enced !e jurisdiction o$ t!e tribunal over t!e subject *atter or nature o$ an action is con$erred only by la, not by t!e parties4 consent or by t!eir aiver in $avor o$ a court t!at ould ot!erise !ave no jurisdiction over t!e subject *atter or t!e nature o$ an action !us, t!e deter*ination o$ !et!er t!e CGA4s cause o$ action $alls under t!e jurisdic jurisdiction tion o$ t!e ;<-/ necessitates necessitates a closer closer ea*ina ea*ination tion o$ t!e las las de.nin# de.nin# t!e ;<-/ ;<-/4s 4s jurisdiction jurisdiction and aut!ority aut!ority !e sur#e sur#e in t!e real real estate business business in t!e country country brou#!t brou#!t it! it an an increasin# increasin# nu*ber nu*ber o$ cases beteen beteen subdivis subdivision ion oners?dev oners?develop elopers ers and lot buyers on t!e issue o$ t!e etent o$ t!e ;<-/4s ;<-/4s eclusi eclusive ve jurisdiction jurisdiction 5n t!e cases t!at reac!ed reac!ed us, e !ave consistently ruled t!at t!e ;<-/ ;<-/ !as eclusive eclusive jurisdiction jurisdiction over co*plaints arisin# arisin# $ro* contracts beteen beteen t!e subdivision developer developer and t!e lot buyer or t!ose ai*ed at co*pelli co*pellin# n# t!e subdivis subdivision ion develope developerr to co*ply co*ply it! its contract contractual ual and statutory statutory obli#ations to *a%e t!e subdivision a better place to live in =e vie CGA4s contention " t!at t!e CA erred in applyin# Article 1191 o$ t!e Civil Code as basis $or t!e contract4s rescission " to be a ne#li#ible point /e#ardless o$ !et!er t!e rescission o$ contract is based on Article 1191 or 1381 o$ t!e Civil Code, t!e $act re*ains t!at !at CGA principally ants is a re$und o$ all pay*ents it already *ade to t!e respondents !is intent, a*ply articulated in its co*plaint, places its action it!in t!e a*bit o$ t!e ;<-/4s eclusive jurisdiction and outside t!e reac! o$ t!e re#ular courts Accordin#ly, CGA !as to .le its co*plaint be$ore t!e ;<-/, t!e body it! t!e proper jurisdiction RATIO$ In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial powers which an administrative agency may
exerci exercise se is den dened ed in the enabli enabling ng act act of such such agenc agency y. In other other words words,, the extent extent to which which an administrative entity may exercise such powers depends largely, if not wholly on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency. In the exercise of such powers, the agency concerned must
commonly interpret interpret and apply contracts and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts, One thrust of the multiplication of administrative agencies is that the interpretation of contracts and the determination of private rights thereunder is no longer a uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by our regular courts.
