TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Spouses Dulay for estafa (swindling) because they falsely claimed to own land in Baguio and sold it to the Dulos spouses, who paid P707,000. The court ruled that even if buyers don’t do thorough checks, sellers can still be criminally liable for fraud if they lie about owning property to induce a sale. This means sellers must be truthful about their property rights, and buyers’ lack of due diligence doesn’t excuse deliberate deception. The penalty was reduced due to changes in the law, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment from two months to one year and an order to return the money with interest.

Deceptive Land Deals: When a Seller’s Lie Leads to Criminal Liability

This case, Spouses Isidro Dulay III and Elena Dulay v. People of the Philippines, revolves around a property sale gone wrong, not just civilly, but criminally. The central question is whether Spouses Dulay committed estafa by deceiving Spouses Dulos into purchasing a property they did not own. The Dulos spouses, seeking to buy land in Baguio, were approached by Elena Dulay, who offered to sell a 450-square meter lot. Presenting a photocopy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2135, purportedly in the names of Isidro and Virginia Dulay, the petitioners convinced the private complainants of their ownership. Despite the title showing ‘Virginia’ instead of ‘Elena,’ Elena claimed they were the same person. Based on these representations, the Dulos spouses agreed to a purchase price of P950,000, making a down payment and subsequent monthly installments totaling P707,000. However, the promised title transfer never materialized, and the Dulos spouses discovered the registered owners were not the petitioners but Isidro’s uncle and his deceased wife.

The core of estafa by means of deceit, as defined under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, lies in the presence of false pretenses or fraudulent acts made before or during the fraud, reliance by the victim on these pretenses, and resulting damage. The Supreme Court meticulously examined whether these elements were present in the Dulay case. The Court highlighted the petitioners’ series of misrepresentations: claiming ownership, asserting they were processing title reconstitution, falsely identifying themselves as the registered owners in TCT No. T-2135, and even fabricating a story about adoption and inheritance to justify their claim. These were not mere honest mistakes; they were deliberate acts intended to deceive.

The defense argued that the Dulos spouses were aware the title was not in the petitioners’ names and thus there was no deceit. However, the Court rejected this, emphasizing that the deceit occurred when the petitioners misrepresented themselves as the owners capable of transferring title. The testimony of prosecution witnesses clearly showed reliance on the false pretenses. As the court quoted from witness testimony:

COURT QUESTION: Madam Witness, what was that P150,000.00 for?

A Down payment for the lot they are selling to us Your Honor.

COURT QUESTION: You testified a while ago that there was an agreement about the transfer?

A Only the title Your Honor.

COURT QUESTION: What was the agreement about the transfer?

A Upon paying theP450,000.00 Your Honor of the said lot, they will deliver [to] us the title and a conditional deed of sale but they did not give us [the title].

The Court distinguished this case from ‘other forms of swindling’ under Article 316(1) of the RPC, which applies when the offender exercises an act of dominion over the property. In this case, the petitioners’ actions were limited to false representations, not acts of ownership over the land itself, thus falling squarely under Article 315(2)(a). The Court clarified the distinction using People v. Suratos:

As we see it, Art. 316, par. 1 covers a specific situation where the offended exercises or executes, as part of the false representation, some act of dominion or ownership over the property to the damage and prejudice of the real owner of the thing. Ob the other hand, this circumstance need not be present for a crime to be committed under Art. 315, par. 2 (a). In the case at bar, the evidence does not disclose that the appellant had exercised certain acts of ownership or dominion beyond his mere pointing of the property to the offender party and his claim that he was the owner thereof.

Finally, the Court addressed the penalty. Due to Republic Act No. 10951, which adjusted penalties based on the value of fraud, the original sentence was modified. The defrauded amount of P707,000 fell under a lower penalty bracket. Consequently, the Supreme Court reduced the indeterminate penalty to imprisonment of two months and one day to one year and one day. The Court also adjusted the interest rates on the actual damages awarded, specifying 12% per annum from the filing of the information until June 30, 2013, 6% until the finality of the decision, and 6% on the total amount from finality until full payment.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Spouses Isidro Dulay III v. People, G.R. No. 215132, September 13, 2021