If there is no demand there is no delay. You cant be held liable to pay damages DIBA?!

So if you are the seller be very careful and may be at that time Maceda Law is not yet popular.

You cannot invoke Maceda Law every time. It can only be invoked once every five years.

In Active Realty the contract to sell was for 4 years towards the end of the 4yr that is when De Roya defaulted in payment of an installment. When she offered to pay the entire unpaid balance, active refuse payment. Why? What active did? It sold the same property to another buyer. Dba in a contract to sell the seller can still sell the object to another buyer after all he is still the actual owner, and that sale is perfectly valid. You cannot even question whether the buyer is in good faith or not. Because we are not talking about double sales here, there was no previous sale. What was entered into is a contract to sell. So active sold the property to another buyer but was there a violation of maceda law here? De roya was not accorded the right to pay in the grace period(change in to during-my opinion only) without interest and also there was no notarial notice in the decision on the notarial demand receipt. So the contract is still effective but the problem is if de roya would still be allowed to pay the balance of the purchase price no property will be delivered to her because it is already sold. So what is the equitable judgment of the court here? Since active already sold the property, the equitable judgment of the court was for active to return to de roya the amount she paid, the effect of cancellation is cash surrender value. Since it is the fault of active it should have been required to return the full amount paid by de roya but the court said no, that’s inequitable. You must deliver to de roya the full selling price of the property. When de roya entered the contact to sell the selling price was 200k, and active sold the property for 875k, this(875k) must be the amount that active must deliver to de roya. So if you are the counsel for the developer, don’t forget about this and if you are the counsel for the buyer don’t forget to invoke this. This kind of scenario happens many times.

Now lets go to PD 597. A developer of a subdivision or condominium project cannot, even if it is the owner of the project cannot sell condominium unit or subdivision lot without first securing a license to sell from HLURB not from DTI. What is the effect if a developer starts to sell condo units without first securing a license from HLURB or selling condo units without even starting to do the ground works, what is the effect of the absence of license to sell to these contracts it has entered into with buyers? Are the contracts affected by the lack of a license to sell? No the contracts are perfectly valid. The developer who did not secure the license to sell will be subject to administrative liability. Now it is also unlawful for an owner or developer to mortgage the project without first securing a license from HLURB. What is the effect of failure to secure the consent or permit of HLURB to mortgage? The mortgage will be declared void and if it has mortgaged the property, it must inform the buyers of the fact of mortgage because the buyers have the option to directly pay their installments to the creditor or the lender and if they are fully paid of their units they are entitled to the release of the titles to them. Why is this very important? Because under the mortage law a mortgage which is an accessory contract is indivisible. The indivisibility of the mortgage mandates that the entire mortgage no matter how many properties are covered secure the payment of an entire obligation for as long as the entire obligation is unpaid the mortgage as a whole exist, cannot be released partially. The exception is here under PD 597 if a buyer who has fully paid for the price to the creditor, because in a mortgage the title is usually delivered to the

creditor(usually banks) this is not required but for the security of the creditor so title is delivered to the creditor then the creditor is obliged to release the title to the buyer. That’s the exception to the indivisibility of a mortgage. If the owner or the developer fails to develop the project according to the plan submitted to HLURB, then the buyer is justified in suspending his payments if they see that the development stopped or there is no progress as indicated in the project plan submitted to HLURB. MONTERO(GAISANO) v. ADVIENTO(KING) but if you are the buyer you cannot just stop payments, you must notify first your seller that you are suspending the payments because of the failure of the developer. You can continue paying payments once the developer continues. You cannot be penalized by suspending payments if you are justified in doing so. The other remedy of the buyer is to demand all the payments made not a cash surrender value. If a condo buyer defaults on the payment of installments, is he covered by the maceda law? YES. Also you might be justified in suspending payments because of the failure of the owner or developer then you fail to notify the owner or developer of you suspending payments then you can be held in default. And your remedy is maceda law. Marquez case. Marquez a buyer of a townhouse where the entire housing project was mortgaged by trans America. Trans America did not secure a license from HLURB also did not notify the buyers the fact of mortgage. Marquez filed a nullification of the mortagage. Earlier we said that failure to obtain license from HLURB will make the mortgage void but the court did not totally void the mortgage. The court merely declared the mortgage is void in so far as the lot purchased by Marquez was concerned not the entire lot. What do you think? Nganong ky marquez ra man? Because marquez is not a party in interest with respect to the other lots he is interested only with respect to the townhouse he was purchasing. If all the other buyers filed case then may be the entire mortgage will be declared void.