Hulst v.

PR Builders
G.R. No. 156364
September 3, 2007
Sec. 7 Art. XII of the Constitution: Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
FACTS:
Jacobus Bernhard Hulst (petitioner) and his spouse Ida Johanna Hulst-Van
Ijzeren (Ida), Dutch nationals, entered into a Contract to Sell with PR Builders, Inc.
(respondent), for the purchase of a 210-sqm residential unit in respondent's
townhouse project in Barangay Niyugan, Laurel, Batangas. When respondent failed
to comply with its verbal promise to complete the project by June 1995, the spouses
Hulst filed before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) a complaint
for rescission of contract with interest, damages and attorney's fees, docketed as
HLRB Case No. IV6-071196-0618. HLURB rendered a decision favoring the spouses.
The Spouses got divorced and Ida assigned her right over the purchased property to
Hulst. the HLURB Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution addressed to the Ex-Officio
Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas directing the latter to
execute its judgment. The Ex-Officio Sheriff proceeded to implement the Writ of
Execution. However, upon complaint of respondent with the CA on a Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition, the levy made by the Sheriff was set aside, requiring the
Sheriff to levy first on respondent's personal properties but was returned
unsatisfied. Upon petitioner's motion, the HLURB Arbiter issued an Alias Writ of
Execution. The Sheriff levied on respondent's 15 parcels of land covered by 13
Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) in Barangay Niyugan, Laurel, Batangas. the Sheriff
set the public auction of the levied properties on April 28, 2000 at 10:00am.. At
10:15 a.m. of the scheduled auction date of April 28, 2000, respondent's counsel
objected to the conduct of the public auction on the ground that respondent's
Urgent Motion to Quash Writ of Levy was pending resolution. Absent any restraining
order from the HLURB, the Sheriff proceeded to sell the 15 parcels of land. Holly
Properties Realty Corporation was the winning bidder for all 15 parcels of land for
the total amount of P5,450,653.33. The sum of P5,313,040.00 was turned over to
the petitioner in satisfaction of the judgment award after deducting the legal fees.
The Sheriff was ordered by the HLURB Arbiter to susppend the proceedings on the
matter. Four months later, or on August 28, 2000, the HLURB Arbiter and HLURB
Director issued an Order setting aside the sheriff's levy on respondent's real
properties, they reasoned that they could not allow it since there was a great
disparity between the alleged values declared by the parties specifically on how
much the properties were sold for.
ISSUE:
1.
Whether or not the CA gravely erred in affirming the decision of the Labor
Arbiter setting aside the levy made by the sheriff on the subject property?
HELD:
1.
Yes , The Court held that the Ca and LA gravely erred because there was no
factual basis for them to state that the value of the property was gravely
disproportionate to the price it was sold. Also the petitioners are not barred from
filing for rescission of contract and damages since they have a legal right,

eventhough under Sec 7 of Art XII of the Constitution states that alien cannot own
land except upon hereditary succession. This contract being merely a contract to
sell and the subject of the contract(property) was never delivered to the spouses,
hence there was no violation of the constitutional provision. Also under Art 1414 par
4 of the Civil Code allows the petitioner for filing for damages for a void contract
since it was done before the contract could be accomplished.