Dear Atty. Shalie,
My family has been renting an apartment for years now and dreamt of owning a property that we could call our home.
Sometime early last year, a friend of mine introduced a couple, who said that they wanted to sell an inherited property in a nearby locality. The property consisted of a small parcel of land with a bungalow built thereon. They showed us a photocopy of the title to the property, wherein the name of the wife was different from the name of the wife we met at the time.
When we asked them why the names were different, they said that they were one and the same person. To make the story short, we were convinced of their representation that the property they were selling was theirs.
Our agreement was to pay for the property in two years, and upon payment of half of the purchase price, they would turn over the title to the property.
However, despite our payment of more than 2/3 of the purchase price, the sellers could not make good of the obligation to turn over the title to us. Upon further inquiry, we discovered that the property was not theirs, and the name of the husband on the title was not the seller but a relative who is his namesake; and the wife is also a different person.
What case could we file against the spouses who claimed to be owners of the property we bought?
Vincent
***
Dear Vincent,
It appears that the property you bought could be subject of an estafa case, given that the sellers represented themselves to be the owners of the property, when in fact, they are not. If they sold the property to you, without any color of title, deceit was employed in the transaction.
The law provides that estafa may be committed by any person who shall defraud another “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.”
To prove this form of estafa: there should exist the following elements: (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; and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
Atty. Shalie Lazatin-Obinque