Malou, the daughter-in-law of Elo and Ria, met Elen who proposed to sell the subject property to either Malou or her in laws. Elen, with her husband Sid, presented a photocopy of TCT T-1234 registered in the names of a certain Sid and Gina covering the subject property. When Spouses Elo and Ria inquired, why a different name was indicated in the title, i.e., Gina instead of Elen, the latter explained that she and Gina are one and the same person.
Subsequently, the parties agreed on the terms of sale on installment bases. The parties further agreed that spouses Sid and Elen will hand over title to the subject property once the spouses Elo and Ria’s monthly payments have reached half the amount of the purchase price.
When the spouses Elo and Ria’s monthly payments reached more than half of the purchased price, the sellers did not turn over the title. Elo and Ria made further inquiries on the subject property and learned that:
- the registered owners , i.e., Sid and Gina are different persons from petitioners;
- the Sid named in the title is Sid’s uncle and namesake; and
- the long deceased spouses Sid and Gina has a daughter, Carmen. Forthwith, Elo and Ria stopped paying the monthly installments.
In refutation, the sellers maintained that they owned the property in question.
Q: Are Sid and Elen guilty of the crime of estafa?
A:Yes, they are. Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC provides:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
x x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.
x x x x
Jurisprudence has long established the elements of Estafa by means of deceit as defined under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC:
- that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
- that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
- that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and
- that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
Here, Sid and Elen made false pretenses and fraudulent misrepresentations to Elo and Ria, consisting of the following untruthful claims:
- that they owned the subject property which they could sell, and consequently transfer title, to the buyers;
- that they are processing the reconstitution of TCT No. T-1234, title to the subject property;
- that they are the Sid and Isidro and Virginia Dulay, the registered owners of the property, mentioned in TCT No. T-1234;
- that Gina and Elen are one and the same person, among others.
Q: What is the concept of deceit in relation to the crime of estafa?
A: Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
Q: Are Sid and Elen employed deceit?
A: Yes. On the whole, the sellers falsely pretended to the buyers that they owned the subject property and dissembled a supposed transfer or reconstitution of title thereto. Sid and Elen simply did not own the subject property, not as registered owners or under any claim of title. Clearly, the first element of the offense, i.e. existence of false pretense, is present.
Q: Did the buyers rely on the buyers’ representation and consequently suffered damages?
A: Yes, the buyers reliance on this false pretense induced and impelled them to purchase the subject property from sham owners who do not hold any color of title and paid them a considerable sum.
(Source: Spouses Dulay III vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 215132, September 13, 2021)
The author is Dean of Lyceum of the Philippines University; Chairman of Philippine Association of Law Schools; and founder of Mawis Law Office