REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
HLURB Building, Kalayaan Ave., Diliman, Quezon City

MR. and MRS. SMITH,

Complainants-Appellees,
HLURB Case No. ________________
(HLURB Case No. _________________)
-versus-

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Respondent-Appellant,
x-----------------------------------------x

COUNTER-MEMORANDUM
Complainants-Appellees, through the undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Board, in opposition to the Appeal interposed by the
Respondent-Appellant, most respectfully state that:

I. TIMELINESS

On March 23, 2015, a copy of Respondent-Appellant's Appeal

Memorandum was served upon the Complainants-Appellees through the
undersigned counsel. Thus, Complainants-Appellees have ten (10) days or
until April 2, 2015, within which to file this Counter-Memorandum.

II. COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS

The undisputed facts are as follows:

On 10 June 2009, at a time the condominium project

_______________________ was then on its pre-development
stage, Complainants-Appellees entered into a Reservation Agreement with
the Respondent-Appellant to acquire/purchase a condominium unit,
specifically, Unit _____ of _______________________ located at
_____________, containing an area of twenty-one (21) square meters.
The following day or on 11 June 2009, Complainants-Appellees paid the
P25,000 reservation fee.

On 19 June 2009, Complainants-Appellees paid

__________________ to settle in full the 20% Down Payment based
on the Net Selling Price in the amount of _________________ as
reflected in the Reservation Agreement. This payment even resulted in

Page 1 of 13
an over-payment of P______________ as reflected in the
Complainants-Appellees' Statement of Account1.

Thereafter, Complainants-Appellees made thirty (31) payments to

Respondent-Appellant in the total amount of One Million Eight Hundred
One Thousand Five Hundred Sixteen Pesos and 20/100
(P1,801,516.20) inclusive of the P25,000 reservation fee and P337,000
down payment.

On 23 June 2014, Complainant-Appellee Mrs. CARA Cruz was

furnished a copy of the “Forfeiture Notice”2 dated 16 June 2014, signed
by Ms. Elizabeth A. RAMSEY, Vice-President of FURTHERDevelopment
Corporation demanding from the Complainants-Appellees the payment of
an alleged overdue account amounting to Nine Hundred Twenty-Five
Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Two Pesos and 11/100
(P925,862.11) within thirty (30) days.

Not knowing their rights under the law, Complainants-Appellees sent

an undated letter3 to Respondent-Appellant relative to the Forfeiture Notice
requesting from the Respondent-Appellant an extension of time within
which to settle the remaining amortizations. However, on 02 July 2014,
the request for an extension of time within which to settle the same had
been disapproved/denied by Ms. Elizabeth A. RAMSEY.

Thus, on 11 July 2014, Complainants-Appellees thru Mrs. CARA Cruz,

filed before the Expanded National Capital Region Field Office of the
HLURB a complaint against the Respondent-Appellant praying that all
payments made by the Complainants-Appellees be accounted for as
payment of the net purchase price of the Condominium Unit and that a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) be issued to prevent the forfeiture of
Unit _____, _______________________ and to deliver the corresponding
Condominium Certificate of Title in favor of the Complainants-Appellees
considering that the total amount paid had already exceeded the purchase
price.

On 30 July 2014, Respondent-Appellant filed its Answer with Special

and Affirmative Defenses praying that the complaint be dismissed for lack
of merit. Respondent-Appellant invoked in its defense the following:

"a. The complainant failed to comply the terms and

conditions of the RESERVATION AGREEMENT specifically the
signing of the Contract to Sell.”

1
Annex "B" - Complainants' Position Paper
2
Annex "C" - Complainants' Position Paper
3
Annex "D" - Complainants' Position Paper

Page 2 of 13
 b. The aggregate payment of the complainant in the
amount of One Million Eight Hundred One Thousand Five
Hundred Sixteen and Twenty Centavos (_______________)
are not purely payment for the principal balance of One
Million Four Hundred Five Thousand Nine Hundred
Twenty Five Pesos (______________). It included the
imputed interest of sixteen percent (16%) based on
computed monthly amortization of balance in the amount
of Thirty Four Thousand One Hundred Eighty Nine Pesos & 37
centavos (PhP34,189.37) payable in sixty (60) months as
clearly stated in the Reservation Agreement.

c. The complainants are fully aware that they were

already "in default" as early as August 31, 2013 and thus,
forewarned that should they failed to settle their outstanding
balance, the respondent shall be forced to forfeit their
unit as evidence by hereto attached demand letter dated July
25, 2013 which is made integral part hereof as Annex "B";

d. Despite receipt of such demand letter, the complainant

failed to settle their unpaid accounts until it reaches an amount
of Nine Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty
Two Pesos & 11 centavos (PhP925,862.11) as of June, 2014.
Such being the case, the respondent sent a "notarial
demand" to the complainant (see Annex "5" of the
complaint). But instead of settling/paying the said account,
the complainants asked for an "indefinite" extension of time
allegedly to "xxx upang maisa-ayos ang aming balance" which
was disapproved by herein respondent (see Annex "6" of the
complaint) for being not in accordance with law;

e. Even prior to the sending of "notarial demand" by the

respondent in pursuant to the provision of Republic Act No.
6552, the complainants are aware of their "unpaid accounts" as
early as October 2013 and in fact, they executed a "note"
which stated among others that "Failure to settle in the
said due date (Nov. 30, 2013) will automatically forfeit
the unit" as shown by hereto attached letter purportedly
prepared and signed by CARA N. Cruz which is made as
integral part hereof as Annex "C"." (Emphasis supplied)

On 08 August 2014, a Notice of Mandatory Conference was issued by

the Housing and Land Use Arbiter (Honorable Arbiter for brevity), requiring
the parties to appear on 26 August 2014 at 2:00 PM at the HLURB
Mediation Bldg. located at Kalayaan Avenue corner Mayaman Street,
Diliman, Quezon city for preliminary mandatory conference.

Page 3 of 13
 On 26 August 2014, at the scheduled preliminary mandatory
conference, only Complainants appeared while Respondent failed to
appear/attend despite due notice.

On September 10, 2014, Complainants received an Order dated

28 August 2014 issued by the Honorable Arbiter BBBBBBBBB requiring the
parties to submit their respective Position Paper and Draft Decision within
fifteen (15) days from receipt.

On March 3, 2015, a copy of the Decision was served upon the

Complainants-Appellees through the undersigned counsel, the dispositive
portion of which are as follows:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises,

judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Declaring the cancellation of the Contract as

invalid;
2. Ordering respondent FURTHERDevelopment Corporation
to release the Condominium Certificate of Title over
Unit ____________________ located at
_______________ free from all liens and encumbrances;
3. Directing respondent FURTHERDevelopment Corporation
to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale over ______ of
the ____________ in favor of complainant spouses
IPAKOSA Cruz and CARA N. Cruz;

4. Ordering respondent FURTHERDevelopment Corporation

to pay this Board P10,000 as administrative fine for
violations of Sections 25 in relation to Section 38 of
P.D. 957.
So ordered" (Emphasis supplied)

III. DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS

It is readily apparent from the Appeal Memorandum that

Respondent-Appellant is not in agreement with all the factual findings and
conclusions of law reached by the Honorable Arbiter. As such,
Complainants-Appellees will squarely meet the grounds relied upon by the
Respondent-Appellant.

Page 4 of 13
A. THE HONORABLE ARBITER DID NOT
ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE
COMPLAINANTS-APPELLEES HAVE
OVERPAID THEIR ACCOUNT SINCE
BOTH THE RESERVATION
AGREEMENT AND THE UNSIGNED
CONTRACT TO SELL ARE SILENT
REGARDING THE 16% INTEREST
RATE

Respondent-Appellant insists that it is entitled to the collection of

interest as the right to collect the same is implied in the Reservation
Agreement and Contract to Sell which was not even signed by the
Complainants-Appellees, a fact that is already admitted by Respondent-
Appellant.

Granting for the sake of argument that a Contract to Sell was duly
executed, Complainants-Appellees cannot subscribe to Respondent-
Appellant's insistence that the payment of interest was deemed agreed
upon based on the provision in the Contract to Sell that the purchase price
of the condominium unit is "exclusive of interest".

Article 1956 of the Civil Code, which refers to monetary interest

under Title VI (Loan), Book IV of the Civil Code, specifically mandates
that no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly
stipulated in writing.

As can be gleaned from the foregoing provision, payment of

monetary interest is allowed only if: (1) there was an express stipulation
for the payment of interest; and (2) the agreement for the payment of
interest was reduced in writing. The concurrence of the two conditions is
required for the payment of monetary interest. Thus, we have held that
collection of interest without any stipulation therefor in writing is
prohibited by law.4

Interest is a compensation fixed by the parties for the use or

forbearance of money. This is referred to as monetary interest. Interest
may also be imposed by law or by courts as penalty or indemnity for
damages. This is called compensatory interest. The right to interest arises
only by virtue of a contract or by virtue of damages for delay or failure to
pay the principal loan on which interest is demanded.

As already admitted by the Respondent-Appellant, Complainants-

Appellees paid the purchase price of the condominium unit from June 2009
to 2012 or during its pre-development stage until actual turn-over. Thus,
Respondent-Appellant had no basis to collect any interests as there can be
4
SEBASTIAN SIGA-AN vs. ALICIA VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 173227, January 20, 2009

Page 5 of 13
no forbearance of money or use of Respondent-Appellant's property to
speak of since the object of the sale was not yet in existence as of the time
payments were made by the Complainants-Appellees.

The stated monthly amortization of P34,189.37 for 60 months to

settle the balance of P1,405,925 can neither substitute for an agreement to
pay interest nor can it give rise to the obligation to pay interest. No
interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in
writing.

Thus, the failure of the Respondent to adduce any proof that

payment of interest was agreed upon necessary negates its basis to
impose and collect interest, especially when the Complainants-Appellees
effected payment for the purchase of the condominium unit during its pre-
development stage.

Respondent-Appellant seems to be very obstinate in insinuating that

Complainants-Appellees agreed to pay an interest of 16% per annum when
it agreed to pay P34,189.37 over a period of 60 months to settle the
P1,405,925 balance of the total purchase price. This is non-sequitur.

The obligation is P1,405,925 which is the balance of the purchase

price, nothing was mentioned concerning interest. The payment of interest
cannot be implied, it is mandated by law to be expressly stipulated and in
writing. It is quite outrageous for Respondent-Appellant to take a stance
that it is entitled to interest payments while the financing for the
development of their condominium project was obtained in part from the
payments of buyers including the Complainants-Appellees during its pre-
development stage.

While there may be instances wherein an interest may be imposed

even in the absence of express stipulation, verbal or written, regarding
payment of interest. Article 2209 of the Civil Code states that if the
obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor
incurs delay, a legal interest of 12% per annum may be imposed as
indemnity for damages if no stipulation on the payment of interest was
agreed upon. Likewise, Article 2212 of the Civil Code provides that interest
due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded,
although the obligation may be silent on this point 5.

All the same, the interest under these two instances may be imposed
only as a penalty or damages for breach of contractual obligations. It
cannot be charged as a compensation for the use or forbearance of money.
In other words, the two instances apply only to compensatory interest and

5
Ibid.

Page 6 of 13
not to monetary interest6. The case at bar involves Respondent-Appellant’s
claim for monetary interest.

On this score alone, the Honorable Arbiter is correct and in accord

with the law and prevailing jurisprudence that Respondent-Appellant had
no basis to impose and collect interest out of the payments made by the
Complainants-Appellees.

Finally, a careful perusal of the statements of account issued by

Respondent-Appellant clearly indicates that the amount due after the
payment of the dowpayment is about P24,000 which resulted to
overpayments of about P10,000 everytime Complainants-Appellees make
payments of P34,189.37. This clearly indicates that Complainants-
Appellees were unsuspectingly paying more than what they had to. As
such, there is no basis for the Respondent-Appellant to unilaterally impose
any penalty against the Complainants-Appellees.

As fittingly stated by the Honorable Arbiter: "The fact that

complainants made monthly payments in the amount of P34,189.37, one
can only surmise that the same is made only in compliance with what is
reflected in the computation, the correctness of which is doubtful."

It was duly established that Respondent-Appellant applied portions of

the payments made as interest when Complainants-Appellees were under
no duty to make such interest payment and the Respondent-Appellant had
no right to demand the same because there was no express stipulation in
writing to that effect. As discussed earlier, there was no binding relation
between the parties as regards the payment of interest. The payment was
clearly a mistake. Since Respondent-Appellant received something when
there was no right to demand it, it has an obligation to return it.

Under Article 1960 of the Civil Code, if the borrower of loan pays
interest when there has been no stipulation therefor, the provisions of the
Civil Code concerning solutio indebiti shall be applied. Article 2154 of the
Civil Code explains the principle of solutio indebiti. Said provision provides
that if something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it
was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises. In
such a case, a creditor-debtor relationship is created under a quasi-
contract whereby the payor becomes the creditor who then has the right to
demand the return of payment made by mistake, and the person who has
no right to receive such payment becomes obligated to return the same.
The quasi-contract of solutio indebiti harks back to the ancient principle
that no one shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another. The
principle of solutio indebiti applies where (1) a payment is made when
there exists no binding relation between the payor, who has no duty to
pay, and the person who received the payment; and (2) the payment is
6
Ibid.

Page 7 of 13
made through mistake, and not through liberality or some other cause.
We have held that the principle of solutio indebiti applies in case of
erroneous payment of undue interest7.

Thus, the Honorable Arbiter is correct when it ruled that all payments
made by the Complainants-Appellees should be applied to the balance of
the purchase price and order the refund when an overpayment of
P44,110.38 has resulted.

Suffice it to say, a real estate seller like the Respondent-Appellant

should not be allowed to interpret the import of a Reservation Agreement
or any related contract in whatever manner it wants to the prejudice of the
buying public. These instruments, which were exclusively drawn by them,
are to be strictly construed against them.

B. THE HONORABLE ARBITER DID NOT

ERR IN DECLARING THE
CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT
INVALID

Respondent-Appellant consistently and unequivocally admitted that it

cancelled the contract with the Complainants-Appellees by sending a
"Notarial Demand". Respondent-Appellant even invoked the provisions
of the Contract to Sell which was not signed by the Complainants-Appellees
to support its claim that the cancellation of the contract is valid.

While Complainants-Appellees completely agree with the

Respondent-Appellant that a contract or agreement is the law between the
parties and they are duty-bound to abide its terms and conditions,
Respondent-Appellant failed to consider that the Contract to Sell was not
even signed by the Complainants-Appellees. As such, the provisions of the
Contract to Sell cannot bind Complainants-Appellees. Willful or otherwise,
the failure of the Respondent-Appellant to obtain the signatures of the
Complainants-Appellant on the Contract to Sell cannot be used by the
former to prejudice the latter.

A simple reading of Section 25 of the REVISED IMPLEMENTING

RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR PD 957 and Section 17 of PD 957
will reveal that it is incumbent upon the seller to cause the registration of
sales or conveyances of subdivision lots and condominium units for the
protection of the buying public. The pertinent provisions read:

"REVISED IRR- PD 957

7
Ibid.

Page 8 of 13
 Section 25. Registration of Conveyances. Sales or
conveyances of the subdivision lots and condominium units shall be
registered within 180 days from execution thereof by the seller with
the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the property is
situated pursuant to Section 17 of the Decree. Except as may
otherwise be provided for by law, the Board may in appropriate
cases cause the Register of Deeds to cancel registration, entries or
annotations on titles made on this regard."

"PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957

SEC. 17. Registration – All contracts to sell, deeds of sale and other
similar instruments relative to the sale or conveyance of the
subdivision lots and condominium units, whether or not the
purchase price is paid in full, shall be registered by the seller in
the Office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city
where the property is situated."
xxx

The purpose of registration is to protect the buyers from any future

unscrupulous transactions involving the object of the sale or contract to
sell, whether the purchase price therefor has been fully paid or not.
Registration of the sale or contract to sell makes it binding on third parties;
it serves as a notice to the whole world that the property is subject to the
prior right of the buyer of the property (under a contract to sell or an
absolute sale), and anyone who wishes to deal with the said property will
be held bound by such prior right.8

Thus, considering that the registration of the Contract to Sell or any

other similar deed or instrument relative to the sale or conveyance of the
subdivision lots and condominium units is incumbent upon the seller, it
necessarily follows then that it is incumbent upon the seller to ensure and
secure the execution of the Contract to Sell or any other similar deed or
instrument relative to the sale or conveyance of the subdivision lots and
condominium units. To rule otherwise is to give imprimatur to unsound
real estate business practices of unscrupulous sellers that will allow them
to evade a duty mandated by law primarily for the protection of the public.
To allow this unsound business practice is to render nugatory the intention
of the law and the rules to protect the buying public.

The Contract to Sell must have been executed after the reservation
fee and down payment had been settled by the Complainants-Appellees. It
is incumbent upon the Respondent to immediately deliver the prescribed
Contract for the Complainants-Appellees to sign the same. Therefore,
Complainants-Appellees' failure to sign the Contract to Sell after the
payment of the reservation fee and the down payment cannot be

8
Luzon Development Bank Vs. Angeles Catherine Enriquez, G.R. No. 168646, January 12, 2011

Page 9 of 13
attributed to them, as such it should not be admitted in evidence to
prejudice the Complainants-Appellees.

Granting for the sake of argument that the Contract to Sell was duly
executed, Respondent-Appellant is nonetheless prohibited by law to impose
an onerous and oppressive provision that upon rescission of the contract,
"any and all of the sums of money paid under this Contract together
with all the rights and interest to all improvements made on the premises
shall be considered as liquidated damages, and forfeited for the
account of the SELLER" 9.

Republic Act No. 6552 otherwise known as the “Realty Installment

Buyer Protection Act” declared it as a public policy to protect buyers of
real estate on installment payments against onerous and oppressive
conditions10.

Granting for the sake of argument that Respondent-Appellant had

sufficient ground to rescind the contract for Complainants-Appellees' failure
to pay the installments due, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the recent
case of GATCHALIAN REALTY, INC. vs. EVELYN M. ANGELES, G.R.
No. 202358, November 27, 2013 is very instructive:

"This Court has been consistent in ruling that a valid and effective
cancellation under R.A. 6552 must comply with the mandatory twin
requirements of a notarized notice of cancellation and a refund of the
cash surrender value.
In Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Panasiatic Travel Corp., we ruled that
the notarial act of rescission must be accompanied by the refund of the
cash surrender value.
x x x The actual cancellation of the contract can only be deemed to
take place upon the expiry of a 30-day period following the receipt by the
buyer of the notice of cancellation or demand for rescission by a notarial
act and the full payment of the cash surrender value.
In Pagtalunan v. Dela Cruz Vda. De Manzano, we ruled that there
is no valid cancellation of the Contract to Sell in the absence of a refund
of the cash surrender value.
Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. No. 6552 requires refund of the cash surrender
value of the payments on the property to the buyer before cancellation of
the contract. xxx (Emphasis supplied)

With all the foregoing, it is clear that the Honorable Arbiter is correct
and in accord with prevailing jurisprudence when she declared that the
cancellation of the sale is invalid.

Interestingly, in a sudden turn of event impelled by an illogical

afterthought, Respondent-Appellant would want to convince this Honorable
9
paragraph 7(b) of the unsigned Contract to Sell
10
Section 2, R.A. No. 6552

Page 10 of 13
Board that Complainants-Appellants should have exercised the right to
demand payment of the surrender value instead of filing a complaint, which
as Respondent-Appellant claims, deprived it of the opportunity to pay in full
the cash surrender value of what had been paid by the Complainants-
Appellees.

However, the records of the proceedings before the Honorable Arbiter

will bear that Respondent-Appellant, despite due notice, opted not to appear
during the scheduled preliminary mandatory conference. Had Respondent-
Appellant really intended to comply with the law, they could have done the
same before the Decision appealed from was rendered. It was only when the
Honorable Arbiter ruled in favor of the Complainants-Appeelees that
Respondent-Appellant expressed a contrary position.

Respondent-Appellant cannot have its cake and eat it too. Respondent-

Appellant cannot have more than what it deserves or that Respondent-
Appellant cannot or should not attempt to have two incompatible things. It is
very clear that Respondent-Appellant took undue advantage of the ignorance
of the Complainants-Appellees, and after being exposed, Respondent-
Appellant now assumes a position that tends to make a mockery of justice,
which this Honorable Board is surely not willing to allow.

Nevertheless, the Honorable Board may consider the argument of the

Respondent-Appellant as an outright admission that they did not refund the
cash surrender value of the total payments made, which is a necessary
element of a valid cancellation of the contract as contemplated in Section 3 of
R. A. No. 6552.

C. THE HONORABLE ARBITER DID NOT

ERR IN ORDERING RESPONDENT-
APPELLANT TO EXECUTE A DEED OF
ABSOLUTE SALE AND TO RELEASE
THE CONDOMINIUM CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE OVER UNIT 1005 OF THE
_______________________ IN
FAVOR OF THE COMPLAINANTS-
APPELLEES

The factual findings of the Honorable Arbiter as sufficiently supported

by the admissions and documents submitted by the parties clearly proved
that Respondent-Appellant had no basis in imposing and collecting interest
payments.

As such, the Honorable Arbiter is completely correct, under prevailing

laws and jurisprudence, in ruling that any portion of the monthly
amortizations paid unduly applied to interest payments must be applied to
the unpaid purchase price. And when applied and accounted, the total
payments made reached a total of P1,801,516.43 as compared to the net

Page 11 of 13
selling price of P1,757,406.25, resulting to an overpayment of
P44,110.38.

Complainants-Appellees, having paid more than the amount of the

net selling price of Condominium Unit No. 1005 of the
_______________________, have paid in full and performed their
obligations under the contract. Thus, it is now incumbent for the
Respondent-Appellant to perform its reciprocal obligation to transfer the
ownership of Condominium Unit No. 1005 of the
_______________________ by executing a Deed of Absolute Sale and to
release the Condominium Certificate of Title, free from all liens and
encumbrances in favor of the Complainants-Appellees.

In attempting to impute error on the findings of the Honorable

Arbiter, Respondent-Appellant insists that the Honorable Arbiter failed to
consider that "notwithstanding the complainants-appellants failed to sign
the Contract to Sell, they are bound by it as they issued the required fifty-
eight (58) pieces of postdated checks with an amount of P34,189.37
starting October 10, 2009 up to July 10, 2014 because the payment for
installment due on August 10, 2009 to September 10, 2009 were paid
ahead of time on June 19, 2009" 11

This argument is erroneous, it only bolsters the findings of the

Honorable Arbiter that the payments made by the Complainants-Appellees
were made out of compliance with the computations made by the
Respondent-Appellant.

The failure of the Respondent-Appellant to substantiate its factual

and legal basis to claim and collect interest payments cannot be
substituted by mere conjectures that Complainants-Appellees agreed to the
payment of interests by issuing checks bearing the amount required by the
Respondent-Appellant. The law is very clear, no interest shall be due
unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing.

It is quite outrageous for the Respondent-Appellant to claim that it

intended to apply the portions of the monthly installment paid by
Complainants-Appellees to interest payments when no loan, credit or
benefit was acquired from them when Complainants-Appellees entered into
a contract involving the subject condominium unit during its pre-
development stage.

Under pain of being repetitive, interest is a compensation

fixed by the parties for the use or forbearance of money. Interest
payments presupposes the existence of a credit or forbearance of money
and the agreement by the debtor to compensate the use of money or

11
page 12, Appeal Memorandum

Page 12 of 13
forbearance of money belonging to the creditor, such is not the case when
Complainants-Appellees entered into a contract with Respondent-Appellant.

Thus, as a necessary consequence of finding that the purchase price

was already paid in full, the Honorable Arbiter is completely correct in
ordering the Respondent-Appellant to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale
over Unit 1005 of the _______________________ located at
_______________________ in favor of the Complainants-Appellees and to
release the Condominium Certificate of Title over the same free from all
liens and encumbrances.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Board that the appeal interposed by the Respondent-
Appellant be dismissed for utter lack of merit.

Complainants-Appellees respectfully pray for such and other reliefs as

may be deemed just and equitable under the circumstances.

________, _________ City for Quezon City, Philippines.

__________________
Counsel for the Complainants-Appellees

Copy furnished:

Page 13 of 13