In Brief
A property developer sold apartments with contractual provisions allowing up to 10% variation in sale area and price. The developer later demanded additional payments for a larger-than-originally-promised sale area. Buyers paid these demands and received property deeds, but years later filed consumer complaints for refunds. The National Commission had previously ruled against the developer in a similar case and applied that decision to reject the buyers' claims. The Supreme Court held that while the earlier case decision binds those original parties, it does not operate as binding precedent for different buyers. The Court remanded the matter for fresh examination on the merits of whether the developer justifiably proved the area increase and whether principles of estoppel prevent late claims by buyers who paid without protest.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.