7/22/2019 1 Go v. Distinction Properties Development

1/2

Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc.G.R. No. 194024

FACTS

Philip L. Go, Pacifico Q. Lim and Andrew Q. Lim (petitioners) are registeredindividual owners of condominium units in Phoenix Heights Condominium developedby the respondent.

In August 2008, petitioners, as condominium unit-owners, filed a complaint beforethe HLURB against DPDCI for unsound business practices and violation of theMDDR, alleging that DPDCI committed misrepresentation in their circulated flyersand brochures as to the facilities or amenities that would be available in thecondominium and failed to perform its obligation to comply with the MDDR.

In defense, DPDCI alleged that the brochure attached to the complaint was a merepreparatory draft. HLURB rendered its decision in favor of petitioners. DPDCI filed

with the CA its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition on the ground that HLURB actedwithout or beyond its jurisdiction.

The CA ruled that the HLURB had no jurisdiction over the complaint filed bypetitioners as the controversy did not fall within the scope of the administrativeagencys authority.

ISSUES:

1.Whether the HLURB has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioners2. Whether PHCC is an indispensable party

HELD:

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determinedby the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of theultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, aswell as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on theallegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or notthe plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Theaverments in the complaintand the character of the relief soughtare the ones tobe consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction alsoremains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover uponall or some of the claims asserted therein. Thus, it was ruled that the jurisdiction of

the HLURB to hear and decide cases is determined by the nature of the cause ofaction, the subject matter or property involved and the parties.

In this case, the complaint filed by petitioners alleged causes of action thatapparently are not cognizable by the HLURB considering the nature of the action andthe reliefs sought.

2. An indispensable party is defined as one who has such an interest in thecontroversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in hisabsence, without injuring or affecting that interest. It is "precisely when anindispensable party is not before the court (that) an action should bedismissed. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequentactions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to theabsent parties but even to those present.The purpose of the rules on joinder of

7/22/2019 1 Go v. Distinction Properties Development

2/2

indispensable parties is a complete determination of all issues not only between theparties themselves, but also as regards other persons who may be affected by thejudgment.

PHCC is an indispensable party and should have been impleaded, as itwould be directly and adversely affected by any determination therein. Evidently, thecause of action rightfully pertains to PHCC.