Subsequently or on December 5, 1988, respondent paid petitioner a reservation fee of P50,000.00for the purchase of a 46-square meter condominium unit (Unit 703) valued at P860,922.00. OnJanuary 16, 1989, respondent paid 90% of the purchase price in the sum of P729,830.00.Consequently, petitioner, through its President, Mr. Antonio G. Puyat, executed a Contract to Sell infavor of the respondent. The contract expressly states that the subject condominium unit “shallsubstantially be completed and delivered” to the respondent “within fifteen (15) months” fromFebruary 8, 1989 or on May 8, 1990, and that “(S)hould there be no substantial completion andfail(ure) to deliver the unit on the date specified, a penalty of 1% of the total amount paid (byrespondent) shall be charged against (petitioner)”.Considering that the stipulated 15-month period was at hand, respondent returned to thePhilippines sometime in April, 1990.On October 5, 1990, respondent returned to the Philippines only to find that his condominium unitwas still unlivable. Exasperated, he was constrained to send petitioner a letter dated November 21,1990 demanding payment for the damages he sustained. But petitioner ignored such demand,prompting respondent to file with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 150, Makati City, a complaintagainst the former for specific performance and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 90-3440.On December 18, 1992, the trial court rendered a Decision finding the petitioner liable forpayment of damages due to the delay in the performance of its obligation to the respondent. Thedispositive portion reads:“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, orderingManila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation to pay plaintiff Eddy Ng Kok Wei the following:1. One percent (1%) of the total amount plaintiff paid defendant;2. P100,000.00 as moral damages;3. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;4. P25,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees; andCost of suit.“SO ORDERED.”On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated March 26, 1999, affirmed in toto the trial court’saward of damages in favor of the respondent.Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court in aResolution dated August 5, 1999.Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner contends that the trial court has nojurisdiction over the instant case. On petitioner’s contention that the trial court has no jurisdictionover the instant case, Section 1 (c) of Presidential Decree No. 1344, as amended, provides:“SECTION 1. – In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and inaddition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority[now Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)]shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hearand decide cases of the following nature:x x x“C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers ofsubdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.