‘All I want is my money back’

“A little thought and a little kindness are often worth more than a great deal of money.” — JOHN RUSKIN

By Alex P. Vidal

Australian national Thomas Patrick Joseph Doyle is hoping that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) regional office will rule in his favor when he filed a “manifestation with motion for the refund of downpayment” against IVQ Landholdings Inc., developer and seller of subdivision lots and housing units in Iloilo City.

HLURB arbiter, Atty. Melchor M. Calopiz, told this writer in an exclusive interview February 18 that he has rendered a decision on Doyle’s motion “and both parties are expected to receive their copies (of the decision) anytime this month (of February 2014).”

If the decision is not favorable to any of them, Doyle or the IVQ Landholdings, represented by its president Ian Eric Pama and vice president Joel M. Nermal, can a file a motion for consideration within 15 days, Calopiz explained.

Doyle filed the manifestation with motion to refund last December 3, 2013 after failing to obtain a favorable decision from HLURB which ruled on September 16, 2013 that he must apply for a loan to pay IVQ Landholdings the total remaining balance of P1,393,140 for the land he purchased from the firm.

DECISION

In the same decision, HLURB also ordered IVQ Landholdings to accept Doyle’s payment “through bank of any financial institution.”

Doyle’s co-complaintant in the case is his Filipino wife, Mesalie. They both live in Calumpang, Molo district.
The case stemmed from the Doyle couple’s complaint that IVQ Landholdings sales agents allegedly befriended and duped them into buying a residential lot at Princedale Residence in Arevalo district sometime in 2011.
They paid P10,000 as reservation fee on October 10, 2011 when they executed a reservation agreement together with the computation sheet of the contract price.

The couple said they paid a total downpayment of P348,285 based on the reservation agreement and computation sheet.

AGREE

The couple alleged they agreed to purchase the lot after Nermal assured them they could avail of a loan from Valiant Bank, IVQ Landholdings’ sister company, to cover the remaining balance of the purchase price amounting to P1,393,140.

However, upon completion of the P348,285 downpayment, Doyle and his wife were allegedly told they were not qualified to avail of a housing loan from Valiant Bank and that they should make direct payment to IVQ Landholdings of the remaining P1,393,140.

Also after they made the initial payment, the couple alleged that they were made to sign a contract to sell prepared by IVQ Landholdings that they should pay the remaining amount “within 120 months without interest.”

But when the Doyle couple made the initial monthly amortization of P11,000 for the lot on December 5, 2012, IVQ Landholdings allegedly refused to receive the payment.

LETTER

Instead, it sent the Doyle couple a letter dated January 17, 2013 reminding them to settle their account within one week from receipt of the letter. IVQ Holdings also attached a letter wherein Doyle had supposedly agreed to pay the balance of the purchase price “within three years through in-house financing at P50,365.35 per month.”

The letter, Doyle insisted, “is not in essence a contract and does not by itself establish that respondent has accepted such proposal.”

The Doyle couple said they could not afford the P50,365.35 monthly amortization saying they were made to believe in the contract they had signed that they would only pay P11,000 within 120 months with no interest.
In his complaint to the HLURB, Doyle claimed “he has been duped into signing the letter prepared by IVQ Landholdings representatives after Valiant Bank has denied his loan application.”

APPLY

When Doyle applied for housing loan in other commercial banks, his application was denied he said because he was already 76 years old and is not a Filipino citizen. His wife is a plain housewife and did not have a steady income.

Dolye wanted to continue amortizing the lot but only under the terms and conditions embodied in the contract to sell, that is 120 months without interest.

Doyle accused IVQ Landholdings of “breach of contractual obligation” when it refused to receive the P11,000 representing the initial monthly amortization.

Doyle demanded from IVQ Landholdings a moral damages of P200,000 and compliance of its contractual obligation to accept the P11,000 monthly amortization for 120 months without interest.

IVQ Landholdings insisted the Doyles “have no cause of action” against them. It argued that the document which the Doyle couple purport to be a contract is “unfounded.”

They pointed out that the obligation of the contract is premised on a contract they signed dated November 27, 2012 not the one signed on October 10, 2011. “The complainants reliance on a document not entered into by the parties do not give rise to any obligation on the part of the respondent,” IVQ Landholdings argued.

OMISSION

IVQ Landholdings swore “there was no act of omission” on their part which violated the Doyle couple’s rights “nor was there any breach of the obligation of the respondents to the complainants to which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. If any right was violated therein, it is the right of the respondent.”

IVQ Landholdings said they and the Doyle couple “voluntarily agreed into a contract to sell dated November 27, 2012.

“That a contract to sell may thus be defined as a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, that is, full payment of the purchase price,” it explained.

IVQ Landholdings, as real estate developer, claimed as a result of the complaints by the Doyle couple, they suffered “besmirched reputation and social humiliation and demanded from the Doyle couple P500,000 in moral damages.

HLURB threw out IVQ Landholdings’ counterclaims “for lack of merit.”

OPTION

In his decision, Calopiz wrote: “In view of the forgoing, this Regional Office has no option but to enforce the provisions of the contract to sell dated November 27, 2012. What is clearly stated in the said contract to sell is that the balance of the purchase price shall be paid thru bank or financial institution.

“Considering that there is no showing that the complainants’ application for loan to pay the balance of the purchase price is rejected or not approved, and no period of time is stated in the contract to sell within which the complainants shall secure a loan, the respondent should give the complainant an opportunity to look for a bank or financial institution that will finance the payment of the remaining balance.

“The issue on damages is answered in the negative. No party in this case is entitled to claim damages,” stated Calopiz order.

Doyle wants his money refunded and is not anymore interested to buy the property. “All I want is my money back. I’m already 76 years old and can hardly walk. This case has given me a lot of stress and it has affected my health,” sobbed Doyle, who brings to elementary school everyday his only daughter with Mesalie.