General Law vs. Special Law: Which should prevail in case of conflict?

   TOPICS:

1. Which should prevail in case of conflict between a special law and a general law? 
2. What should be the rule in construction in case of doubt in statutes conferring powers to administrative bodies?

Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Payawal

FACTS:

Petitioner Payawal entered into a contract to sell with Respondent Solid Homes, Inc. in 1975 over a subdivision lot in Marikina. Despite being fully paid in 1981, Respondent failed to execute a Deed of Sale in favor of the Petitioner. 

Hence, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the RTC Quezon City requesting the Respondent for the delivery of the title or, alternatively, the return of all the amounts they paid. The Respondent, in turn, moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, it being vested in the National Housing Authority under PD 957, as amended by PD 1344.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Petitioner and cited BP 129 as the basis of its jurisdiction. BP 129 is a later enactment, promulgated in 1981, as opposed to PD 957 as amended by PD 1344, as promulgated in 1978. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint involving refund or any other claims by a subdivision lot buyer against the developer. 

RULING: 

No, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint involving a refund or any other claims by a subdivision lot buyer against the developer.

Under the rules of statutory construction, in case of conflict between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail. Where the general act is later, the special statute will be construed as remaining an exception to its terms, unless repealed expressly or by necessary implication.

In this case, PD 957 as amended by PD 1344, a special law, should prevail over B.P. 129, a general law.  Although BP 129 is a later general law governing the general jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, it did not repeal PD 957 as amended by PD 1344, an earlier special law granting the National Housing Authority jurisdiction over refunds or any other claims by a subdivision lot buyer against the developer. Thus, the jurisdiction of the NHA should be construed as an exception to the general jurisdiction of the RTC.

Therefore, it is the NHA, and not the RTC, that has jurisdiction over refunds or any other claims by a subdivision lot buyer against the developer. 

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES

1. What is the rule in case of conflict between a general law and a special law? 

In case of conflict between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail regardless of the dates of their enactment

2. What if the special law is enacted earlier than the general law? 

The circumstance that the special law is passed before or after the general act does not change the principle.

Where the general act is later, the special statute will be construed as remaining an exception to its terms, unless repealed expressly or by necessary implication.

3. What if the special law is enacted later than the general law?

Where the special law is later, it will be regarded as an exception to, or a qualification of, the prior general law. 

4. In case of doubt in statutes conferring powers on the administrative agencies, what should be the rule? 

Statutes conferring powers on administrative agencies must be liberally construed to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the legislative purpose.

5. What is the philosophy or reason behind that liberal construction? 

As a result of the growing complexity of the modern society, it has become necessary to create more and more administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified activities. Specialized in the particular fields assigned to them, they can deal with the problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature or the courts of justice. This is the reason for the increasing vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in what is now not unreasonably called the fourth department of the government.

PRESENT LAW

• the adjudicatory body is now the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) under RA 11201 
• the institutional succession is as follows - NHA → HSRC → HLURB → HSAC under R.A. No. 11201 (the law creating the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD)

Full text here.