For those of you who have read my post on the Recto and Maceda Laws and are wondering why the Maceda Law can't be used by developers, there's a decided case from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of Sec. 3 of the Maceda Law.
The case is Lagandaon vs. CA, 290 SCRA 330. I quote from the case itself:
The policy of the Maceda Law, as embodied in its title, is "to provide protection to buyers of real estate on installment payments," and as provided in Section 3 thereof, the declared policy is "to protect buyers of real estate on installment payments against onerous and oppressive conditions." Therefore, one who buys the property from the developer and who steps into the shoes of the seller under the Contract to Sell cannot claim any right or protection under the law. And thus, if the Maceda Law has any relevance at all, it is to protect the buyer, not the developer-seller or his successor-in-interest. Furthermore, Section 3(b) of the Law does not grant the developer any legal ground to cancel the contracts to sell; rather, it prescribes the responsibility of the seller in case the "contract[s are] cancelled.
So there you have it; a pronouncement straight from the Supreme Court's mouth about the protection the Maceda Law gives to buyers.