Who has exclusive jurisdiction over developer - land owner disputes-- this concern a developer who has failed to comply with his contractual obligation but does not want to sign mutual rescission of contract

 This post encountered a 4 hectare stalled project in a major city in Northern Luzon but we got stalled on the uncancelled  joint venture project agreement between the land owner and developer.  We just do not know if this was unannotated.  Thus there is a possibility that we end up in courts to settle the issue.  However a decided case said that the local courts has no jurisdiction over the issue.  

However DHSUD has written him a letter cancelling him as the developer.   The position of our project officer and that of the lawyer is we need to have the mutual agreement of the JV contract (kasi nga joint).  The owner has all ready sent a notarial cancellation in addition to the DHSUD letter.   And this post is not comfortable with the unilateral notarial cancellation  There is still a risk that the previous developer might cause trouble, register objection over LTS and many many more

The team that will take over has made moves that the previous developer cant bother the project

This post and several others in the team saw a precedent though that DHSUD and not the lower courts has exclusive jurisdiction involving:    1.  HoAs in subdivision.    2.  Installlment sales covered by PD 957   3 and 3  developer land owner disputes.

Now DHSUD has all ready written a letter  to the previous developer banning him....

This isi just  like the Senate being unable to proceed with the VP SD impeachment because they have not acquired jurisdiction.   

GR 1301 PDI vs Elizabeth Daclan

Sec. 34. Jurisdiction of Regional Adjudicators. - The Regional Adjudicators shall exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving the following:

34.1 Cases involving subdivisions, condominiums, memorial parks and similar real estate developments:

(a) Actions concerning unsound real estate business practices filed by buyers or homeowners against the project owner or developer, which cause prejudice to the buyers or committed with bad faith and disregard of the buyers' rights;

(b) Claims for refund, and other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman: Provided, That when the cause of action arises from the buyer's rights under Section 23 of PD 957 and the purchase price of the property is paid through a housing loan from a bank or other financing institutions, the latter shall be impleaded as necessary party;

(c) Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations arising from the sale of the lot or unit and development of the subdivision or condominium project;

(d) Disputes involving the open spaces or common areas and their use filed by the project owner or developer or the duly registered HOA, including the eviction of informal settlers therein, in accordance with the requirements of law, and the rules and regulations promulgated by duly constituted authorities;

(e) Suits to declare subdivision, condominium or other real estate developments within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department as abandoned, as defined under Section 3 of the Act for the purpose of Section 35 of PD 957;

(f) Disputes involving easements within or among subdivision projects; and

(g) Actions to annul mortgages executed in violation of Section 18 of PD 957 filed by a subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner and/or developer and the mortgagee.

34.2 Cases involving [Home owners Associations (HOA)]:

(a) Controversies involving the registration and regulation of HOAs;

(b) Intra-association disputes or controversies arising out of the relations between and among members of HOAs; between any or all of them and the HOA of which they are members;

(c) Inter-association disputes or controversies arising out of the relations between and among two (2) or more HOAs between and among federations and other umbrella organizations, on matters pertaining to the exercise of their right, duties and functions; and

(d) Disputes between such HOA and the State, insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist and those which are intrinsically connected with the regulation of HOAs or dealing with the internal affairs of such entity;

34.3 Disputes involving the implementation of Section 18 of RA 7279, as amended by 10884, and its implementing rules and regulations; and

34.4 Disputes or controversies involving laws and regulations being implemented by the Department except those cases falling within the jurisdiction of other judicial or quasi-judicial body.