San Miguel Properties, Inc., vs. Sec. Hernando B. Perez, et al.

G.R. No. 166836, September 4, 2013; per Bersamin, J.

Facts

San Miguel Properties Inc. purchased in 1992, 1993 and April 1993 from B.F. Homes, Inc. (BF Homes) 130 residential lots situated in its subdivision BF Homes Parañaque. The transactions were embodied in three separate deeds of sale. The TCTs covering the lots bought under the first and second deeds were fully delivered to San Miguel Properties, but 20 TCTs covering 20 of the 41 parcels of land for which San Miguel Properties paid the full price of, were not delivered to San Miguel Properties. A complaint-affidavit was filed in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City (OCP Las Piñas) charging respondent directors and officers of BF Homes with non-delivery of titles in violation of Section 25, in relation to Section 39, both of Presidential Decree No. 957. San Miguel Properties’ criminal complaint was dismissed on several grounds, one of which is that there existed a prejudicial question necessitating the suspension of the criminal complaint for the violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957.

Issue

Whether or not the proceedings on the criminal complaint for the violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 may be suspended on the ground of a prejudicial question

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that there exists a prejudicial question. The action for specific performance in the HLURB would determine whether or not San Miguel Properties was legally entitled to demand the delivery of the remaining 20 TCTs, while the criminal action would decide whether or not BF Homes’ directors and officers were criminally liable for withholding the 20 TCTs. The resolution of the former must obviously precede that of the latter, for should the HLURB hold San Miguel Properties to be not entitled to the delivery of the 20 TCTs because Atty. Orendain did not have the authority to represent BF Homes in the sale due to his receivership having been terminated by the SEC, the basis for the criminal liability for the violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 would evaporate, thereby negating the need to proceed with the criminal case.