Post

Isidro and Elena Dulay vs. People of the Philippines

Posted
By Anonymous
7 min read
Isidro and Elena Dulay vs. People of the Philippines

Case Title and Citation

Spouses Isidro Dulay III and Elena Dulay, petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.
G.R. No. 215132, September 13, 2021
Supreme Court - Second Division
Ponente: Hernando, J.

Facts

  • In January 1999 petitioner Elena offered to sell a 450-square-meter lot in Baguio City (the subject property) to Marilou Dulos (daughter-in-law of complainants) or to her in-laws, spouses Isabelo and Hilaria Dulos.
  • During a meeting at the Dulos’ home in San Nicolas, Agoo, La Union, petitioners presented a photocopy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2135, purportedly in the names of Isidro and Virginia Dulay, and represented that Virginia and Elena were the same person.
  • The parties agreed on a sale price of P950,000.00 with a down payment of P150,000.00 and monthly installments of P30,000.00 for two years; title was to be delivered when payments reached one-half of the purchase price (P450,000.00).
  • On February 19, 1999 petitioners issued a receipt acknowledging the P150,000.00 down payment for the lot described in TCT No. T-2135.
  • The spouses Dulos paid a total of P707,000.00 in installments but never received the title.
  • Upon inquiry, the spouses Dulos learned that the registered owners in TCT No. T-2135 (Isidro and Virginia Dulay) were different persons from petitioners; the registered Isidro was petitioner’s uncle and the registered owners had a daughter, Carmencita.
  • Petitioners advanced varying defenses at trial: that title reconstitution/transfer was pending; that petitioner Isidro inherited or was donated the property from a predecessor (Maria); and that complainants knew the title was not yet in petitioners’ names.
  • The Regional Trial Court (Agoo, La Union, Branch 32) found petitioners guilty of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced them. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification (interest on damages). Petitioners filed this petition for review on certiorari.

Issues

  1. Whether petitioners are guilty of the crime of estafa when private complainants were aware that the subject property was not in petitioners’ names at the time of the transaction?
  2. Assuming deceit was employed, whether petitioners were correctly convicted under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code instead of estafa under Article 316, paragraph 1?

Ruling

  1. Yes - Petitioners are guilty of estafa by means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court found they misrepresented ownership and identity to induce payment.
  2. Yes - The conviction under Article 315(2)(a) is correct. The facts do not show the execution of acts of dominion or ownership required for Article 316(1); the offense is properly characterized as estafa by deceit under Article 315(2)(a).

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Legal standard: Article 315(2)(a) (estafa by deceit) requires: (1) a false pretense or fraudulent act; (2) that it be made prior to or simultaneously with the fraud; (3) reliance by the offended party causing them to part with money or property; and (4) resulting damage. The Court applied established jurisprudence (cases cited in the source) in affirming these elements were proven.
  • Findings of deceit:
    1. Petitioners falsely represented they owned the subject property and could transfer title; they presented a photocopy of TCT No. T-2135 and claimed identity with the registered names (e.g., Virginia = Elena).
    2. These representations were made prior to or contemporaneous with the sale and induced the spouses Dulos to pay P707,000.00.
    3. The spouses Dulos relied on the misrepresentations and suffered pecuniary loss.
  • Credibility and deference: The Court deferred to the RTC and CA factual findings on witness credibility, noting consistent trial testimony of prosecution witnesses and no exceptional ground to overturn those findings.
  • Reconstitution argument: Petitioners’ claim that they were reconstituting a lost title (citing the procedure under the reconstitution statute) was rejected because TCT No. T-2135 was never issued in their names; reconstitution presupposes prior ownership and does not confer ownership nor substitute for a suit to determine ownership (citing the reconstitution statute and Lee v. Republic).
  • Distinction between Articles 315 and 316: The Court explained Article 316(1) applies where the offender, pretending to be owner, executes acts of dominion/ownership (e.g., conveyance, encumbrance) to the prejudice of the true owner. Here petitioners’ acts were limited to false pretenses and representations rather than demonstrable acts of dominion over the property, making Article 315(2)(a) the proper provision (citing People v. Suratos and related jurisprudence).
  • Sentencing and RA 10951: With RA 10951 amending penalty thresholds, the Court recalculated the penalty. For the amount involved (P707,000.00), the penalty range under amended Article 315 corresponds to arresto mayor (maximum) to prision correccional (minimum). Applying precedents (Arriola v. People and others) and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the indeterminate sentence to imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor (minimum) to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional (maximum).
  • Damages and interest: The Court modified the CA’s interest award, ordering:
    1. 12% per annum on P707,000.00 from filing of the Information (March 9, 2005) until June 30, 2013;
    2. 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of the Decision; and
    3. The total amount in (1)-(2) shall earn 6% per annum from finality until full payment.
  • The doctrine of pro reo/lenity did not apply because Article 315(2)(a) was specifically charged and established beyond reasonable doubt.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Elements of estafa by deceit (Article 315(2)(a)): false pretense/fraudulent act; timing (prior/simultaneous); reliance by the victim; resulting damage.
  • Deceit includes misrepresentation, suppression, concealment, and dissembling; ownership claim by false identity is a classic form of deceit.
  • Distinction between Article 315(2)(a) and Article 316(1): Article 316(1) requires executed acts of dominion/ownership beyond mere false representation.
  • Reconstitution of Torrens title does not establish ownership nor replace an action to determine ownership.
  • Courts give due deference to trial court credibility findings when affirmed on appeal.
  • RA 10951 adjusts penalty ranges for crimes; sentencing must follow the amended thresholds and applicable jurisprudence.

Disposition

  • The appeal is dismissed. The April 29, 2014 Decision and October 15, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33777 are affirmed with modifications.
  • Petitioners Isidro and Elena Dulay are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum.
  • Petitioners are ordered to pay actual damages of P707,000.00 with interest computed as follows:
    1. 12% per annum from March 9, 2005 (filing of the Information) to June 30, 2013;
    2. 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 to finality of this Decision; and
    3. The total amount shall thereafter earn 6% per annum from finality until full payment.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Carandang, Gaerlan, and Rosario, JJ., concur.
  • No separate concurring or dissenting opinions were stated in the decision.

Significance / Notes

  • Sellers who misrepresent ownership or identity and induce buyers to pay by false pretenses may be criminally liable for estafa even if the buyer was aware of some title irregularity; reliance on misrepresentations is dispositive.
  • Reconstitution of a Torrens title is a procedural remedy for lost certificates and does not resolve or confer ownership rights; a separate action is required to adjudicate ownership.
  • The case illustrates the application of RA 10951 in recalibrating penalties for estafa and demonstrates the Court’s approach to applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and prior jurisprudence in fixing minimum and maximum terms.
  • Interest computation may be multilayered: higher rates for earlier periods (to reflect statutory changes) and a different rate from finality to full satisfaction, as applied here.
  • The Court’s deference to trial court credibility underscores the evidentiary importance of consistent witness testimony and documentary exhibits (e.g., a presented title copy and receipt) in proving deceit.
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Remedial Law
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.