On the outset, it would seem that the complaint filed by ___ is purely a contractual breach because of

the fact that the allegation points to the defendants failure to fulfill his contractual obligations to the
complainant based on the contract that the parties agreed upon.

However, it is expressly provided under Section 20 of P.D. 957, Regulating The Sale Of Subdivision Lots
And Condominiums, Providing Penalties For Violations Thereof, that:

Section 20. Time of Completion. Every owner or developer shall construct and provide the
facilities, improvements, infrastructures and other forms of development, including water
supply and lighting facilities, which are offered and indicated in the approved subdivision or
condominium plans, brochures, prospectus, printed matters, letters or in any form of
advertisement, within one year from the date of the issuance of the license for the subdivision
or condominium project or such other period of time as may be fixed by the Authority.

Based on the foregoing provision, the allegations, if proven is not only a contractual breach but a
statutory violation as well.

Whether the HLURB as contended by the defendant or the RTC as contended by the complainant has
jurisdiction over the issue at hand.

The extent to which an administrative agency may exercise its powers depends largely, if not wholly, on
the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency. Presidential Decree No. 957 clarifies
and spells out the quasi-judicial dimensions of the grant of jurisdiction to the HLURB in the following
specific terms:

Sec 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate real estate trade and business and in addition
to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall
have the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature.

a. Unsound real estate business practices;

b. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit
buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and

c. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers
of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, broker or salesman.

The provisions of P.D. No. 957 were intended to encompass all questions regarding subdivisions and
condominiums. The intention was aimed at providing for an appropriate government agency, the
HLURB, to which all parties aggrieved in the implementation of provisions and the enforcement of
contractual rights with respect to said category of real estate may take recourse. The business of
developing subdivisions and corporations being imbued with public interest and welfare, any question
arising from the exercise of that prerogative should be brought to the HLURB which has the technical
know-how on the matter. In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB must commonly interpret and apply
contracts and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. This ancillary power is no
longer a uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by the regular courts1

It is a settled rule that the jurisdiction of the HLURB to hear and decide cases is determined by the
nature of the cause of action, the subject matter or property involved and the parties.

"The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be
obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts

If the court in which a claim is sought to be enforced finds that the dispute is under the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of an administrative agency, it may suspend the judicial process pending referral of
such issues to the administrative body for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged,
dismiss the case without prejudice.

A litigant cannot go around the authority of the concerned administrative agency and directly seek
redress from the courts. Thus, when the law provides for a remedy against a certain action of an
administrative board, body, or officer, relief to the courts can be made only after exhausting all
remedies provided therein. It is settled that the non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the Rules of
Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint.

Under the Revised Rules of Procedure of the HLURB, action may be commenced with the filing of the
complaint at the Regional Field Office. It will be decided upon by an arbiter. The decision of the arbiter
may be appealed before the Board of Commissioners, thereafter, the decision of the Board may be
appealed before the Office of the President.

It is only after the exhaustion of the aforementioned remedies that a party may seek the competence of
the Court. Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, decisions of administrative agencies exercising quasi-
judicial function may be appealed before the Court of Appeals by review on certiorari.

Wherefore, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice of filing the same before a
proper tribunal.

1
Antipolo Realty Corp. v. National Housing Authority, 237 Phil. 389, 397-398 (1987)