Dear PAO,

Lino presented a photocopy of the title where his name was reflected as the registered owner, and he is selling it to me. We signed a contract to sell, and I made a down payment. The remaining balance will be paid in installments. He failed to present the owner’s duplicate copy of the title until now. A further inquiry revealed that the name “Lino” appearing in the title was already dead and happened to be his uncle, and this “Lino” to whom I have been talking is an impostor. I told Lino to refund my money, or I will file a complaint estafa against him. He claimed that he could not be held liable for such a crime because he inherited the land, but he could not present evidence to back his claim. Is there a fraud or deceit in this instance?

Joseph

Dear Joseph,

Lino may have committed fraud by misrepresenting to be the owner of a land and selling it to you. The concept of fraud was expounded by the court in Aricheta v. People of the Philippines, GR 172500, Sept. 21, 2007, where Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario stated:

“Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth; and includes all forms of surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any other unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a species of fraud. And 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. Xxx”

The acts committed by Lino may fall within the definition of the crime of Estafa as provided under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act 10951, viz:

“Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by: xxx

“By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

“By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. xxx”

The elements of the afore-stated crime were enumerated in Lateo, et al. v. People of the Philippines, GR 161651, June 8, 2011, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, stated:

“The elements of the felony are as follows:

“1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means.

“2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.

“3. 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.

“4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.”

Applying the afore-quoted decision in your situation, all the elements enumerated above were present in your transaction with Lino. There is deceit because he was selling the land under the false pretense that he was its owner when, in fact, he was not. Such misrepresentation induced you to enter into a contract with him and part with your money, causing you damage. His claim that the land was owned by him without any proof to substantiate it will not absolve him from Estafa. After all, a mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net