## FACTS:

The petitioner and his co-owner/ developer, Fermin Salazar, sold two lots in the E & S Delta Village in Quezon City to the private respondent on an installment basis. The National Housing Authority (NHA) issued a resolution ordering the petitioner to cease further sales of lots due to complaints of non-development. While the complaints were pending, the private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and another couple, alleging that he suspended payment of amortizations due to petitioner's failure to develop the village. The Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) dismissed the private respondent's complaint, but on appeal, the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) reversed the OAALA's decision and ordered the completion of the subdivision development and the reinstatement of the private respondent's purchase contract for one lot. As for the other lot, which was sold to another couple, the HSRC ordered the immediate refund of the payments made by the private respondent. The respondent Executive Secretary affirmed the HSRC's decision, leading the petitioner to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court. The petitioner argues that PD 957, which was applied by the Executive Secretary, cannot govern the transaction since the land purchase agreements were entered into prior to its enactment. On the other hand, the private respondent contends that PD 957 should be given retroactive effect.

ISSUES

1. Whether the non-development of a subdivision constitutes a legal justification for the non-payment of amortizations by a buyer on installment under land purchase agreements entered into prior to the enactment of P.D. 957, "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree"?

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the respondent Executive Secretary did not abuse his discretion and that P.D. 957 is to be given retroactive effect to cover even those contracts executed prior to its enactment in 1976. The law’s intent, as interpreted from its preamble and the circumstances it sought to remedy, is clearly to protect subdivision lot buyers by regulating developers and preventing harmful practices. Sections of P.D. 957 itself specifically allow for retroactive application, reinforcing the intent to have the law regulate even past contracts to effectively protect buyers.

PRINCIPLES

1. Intent of the Legislature: The intent of the legislature in enacting a law constitutes as the law itself and must be enforced when ascertained, even if it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute.

2. Retroactive Application of Statutes: A statute may be applied retroactively if it can be inferred from its intent and provisions that such application was intended by the legislature.

3. Protection of Homebuyers: Laws enacted with the purpose of protecting homebuyers, particularly from fraudulent practices by developers, must be interpreted in a manner that effectuates such protection.

4. Non-Forfeiture of Payments: Buyers are entitled to refunds of their installments plus interest if the developer fails to develop the subdivision according to the approved plans within the stipulated time, as specified under the protective provisions of P.D. 957.

5. Condonation of Default by Tolerance: Tolerance of payment defaults by the seller can amount to condonation of such defaults, affecting the seller’s ability to later cancel the contract based on such defaults.

6. Finality of Decisions: Decisions become final and executory after the lapse of the prescribed period for filing a motion for reconsideration, assuming no such motion is filed within that time.