BPI VS. ALS MGMT. AND DEVT. CORP.

FACTS: ALS bought a condominium unit from BPI. Despite the stipulation in the
Deed of Sale that ALS, as vendee should shoulder the expenses for the registration of
the Deed of Sale and issuance of the Certificate of Title, BPI advanced such amount
and shouldered such expenses.
Now, ALS refuses to pay BPI the amount advanced by the latter based on Sec. 25 of
PD 957 which provides that no fee shall be required from buyers except that for
registration of deed of sale but BPI has jacked up or increased the amount by
including amounts that should not be collected from buyers of condo units. Hence,
BPI filed a case for collection of sum of money before the RTC of Makati.
ALS also filed a Compulsory Counterclaim alleging that BPI has not fulfilled the
specifications of the condo unit as in that of the brochures also stating that the units
are deficient and defective.
RTC: ALS must pay BPI of the amount advanced by the latter. As to the
counterclaim, BPI must fix the defects and deficiencies in the units and reimburse
ALS of the amounts spent by it due to such defects/deficiencies
CA: Affirmed in toto
*BPI now questions the jurisdiction of RTC to hear ALS counterclaim for the first
time before the Supreme Court alleging that the jurisdiction lies with the HLURB
ISSUE: 1. WoN RTC has jurisdicition
2: WoN BPI is barred by estoppel from questioning such jurisdiction
HELD: 1. NEGATIVE. ALS counterclaim being one of specific performance and
damages it falls under the jurisdiction of the HLURB as provided by Sec. 1 of PD
No. 1344.
2. AFFIRMATIVE. Since BPI participated in the trial and only after an unlawful
judgment did it raise the issue of jurisdiction, it may no longer deny the trial courts
jurisdiction for estoppel bars it from doing so. SC cannot countenance the
inconsistent postures BPI has adopted by attacking the jurisdiction of the regular
court to which it has voluntarily submitted.
Also, considering that ALS first filed its counterclaim in 1985 and BPI only
questioned RTCs jurisdiction on its appellants brief on 1991, it is clearly guilty of
estoppel by laches considering that six (6) years has passed before it raised the issue
of jurisdiction.