Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 152317 November 10, 2004
VICTORI MORE!O"#ENTFER,
$
GUNTER #ENTFER %&' (O)N CRIGIE *OUNG
CROSS, petitioners,
vs.
)NS (URGEN +O#FF, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
,UISUM-ING, J..
For review on certiorari are the Decision
1
dated June 14, 2001, and Resolution
2
dated Februar
22, 2002, of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"#$.R. !% &o. 4'2(2. )he decision reversed the
*ud+,ent
-
of the Re+ional )rial !ourt of !alapan !it, .riental Mindoro, /ranch -0, in !ivil
!ase &o. R#4210.
)he facts are as follows1
)he petitioners are $unter 2entfer, a $er,an citi3en4 his Filipina wife, %ictoria More5o#2entfer4
and John !rai+ie 6oun+ !ross, an "ustralian citi3en, all residin+ in 7aban+, Puerto $alera,
.riental Mindoro. Respondent 8ans Jur+en 9olff is a $er,an citi3en, residin+ in 7an 2oren3o
%illa+e, Ma:ati !it.
Petitioners alle+ed that with respondent, on March ;, 1002, the en+a+ed the notarial services of
"tt. Rodri+o !. Di,aacac for1 <1= the sale of a beach house owned b petitioner !ross in
7aban+, Puerto $alera, .riental Mindoro, and <2= the assi+n,ent of !ross> contract of lease on
the land where the house stood. )he sale of the beach house and the assi+n,ent of the lease ri+ht
would be in the na,e of petitioner %ictoria More5o#2entfer, but the total consideration of
220,000 Deutsch,ar:s <DM= would be paid b respondent 8ans Jur+en 9olff. " pro,issor
note was e?ecuted b said respondent in favor of petitioner !ross.
"ccordin+ to respondent, however, the 2entfer spouses were his confidants who held in trust for
hi,, a ti,e deposit account in the a,ount of DM 200,000
4
at 7olid /an: !orporation. "pprised
of his interest to own a house alon+ a beach, the 2entfer couple ur+ed hi, to bu petitioner
!ross> beach house and lease ri+hts in Puerto $alera. Respondent a+reed and throu+h a ban:#to#
ban: transaction, he paid !ross the a,ount of DM 221,(00
@
as total consideration for the sale
and assi+n,ent of the lease ri+hts. 8owever, !ross, More5o#2entfer and "tt. Di,aacac
surreptitiousl e?ecuted a deed of sale whereb the beach house was ,ade to appear as sold to
More5o#2entfer for onl P100,000.
;
)he assi+n,ent of the lease ri+ht was li:ewise ,ade in
favor of More5o#2entfer.
(
Apon learnin+ of this, respondent filed a !o,plaint doc:eted as !ivil
!ase &o. R#4210 with the lower court for annul,ent of sale and reconveance of propert with
da,a+es and praer for a writ of attach,ent.
"fter trial, the court a Buo dis,issed the co,plaint for failure to establish a cause of action, thus1
"!!.RDC&$26, *ud+,ent is hereb rendered in favor of the defendants and a+ainst the
plaintiff, dis,issin+ the co,plaint for the reason that plaintiff has not established a cause
of action a+ainst the defendants with costs a+ainst the plaintiff.
7. .RDDRDD.
'
"++rieved, respondent appealed to the !ourt of "ppeals.
0
/ut in its Decision
10
dated June 14, 2001, the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial
court, thus1
98DRDF.RD, the *ud+,ent appealed fro, is hereb RD%DR7DD and a new one is hereb
rendered, as follows1
1. Defendants#appellees spouses $enter
11
and %ictoria Moreno#2entfer and John
!rai+ie 6oun+ !ross are *ointl and severall held liable to pa plaintiff#appellant
the a,ount of 220,000.00 DM $er,an !urrenc or its present peso eBuivalent
plus le+al interest startin+ fro, March ', 100-, the date of the last final de,and
letter4
2. )he above defendants#appellees are *ointl and severall held liable to pa
plaintiff#appellant the a,ount of P200,000.00 Philippine !urrenc, representin+
the a,ount of e?penses incurred in the repairs and ,aintenance of the propert
plus le+al interest startin+ fro, .ctober 2', 1002, the date the a,ount was
received b defendant#appellee %ictoria Moreno#2entfer4 and
-. )he case a+ainst defendant#appellee Rodri+o Di,aacac is dis,issed.
7. .RDDRDD.
12
8ence, the instant petition raisin+ the followin+ issues1
1= D.D7 "R)C!2D 12-' .F )8D &D9 !C%C2 !.DD "PP26 C& )8D !"7D ")
/"RE
1-
2= D.D7 )8D PRC&!CP2D .F 7.2A)C. C&DD/C)C A&DDR "R)C!2D 21@4 .F )8D
&D9 !C%C2 !.DD, )8D PRC&!CP2D .F JA7)C!D "&D DFAC)6, "PP26 C& )8D
!"7D ") /"RE
14
"rticle 12-' of the &ew !ivil !ode provides1
"R). 12-'. Pa,ent ,ade b a third person who does not intend to be rei,bursed b the
debtor is dee,ed to be a donation, which reBuires the debtor>s consent. /ut the pa,ent
is in an case valid as to the creditor who has accepted it.
Petitioners posit that in a contract of sale, the seller is the creditor, who in this case is !ross, and
the buer is the debtor, na,el More5o#2entfer in this case. Respondent is the third person who
paid the consideration on behalf of More5o#2entfer, the debtor. Petitioners insist that respondent
did not intend to be rei,bursed for said pa,ent and debtor More5o#2entfer consented to it.
)hus, b virtue of "rticle 12-', pa,ent b respondent is considered a donation.
Respondent counters that "rticle 12-' bears no relevance to the case since it applies onl to
contracts of loan where pa,ent is ,ade b a third person to a creditor in favor of a debtor of a
previousl incurred obli+ation. )he instant case, in contrast, involves a contract of sale where no
real creditor#debtor relationship e?ists between the parties. Further, respondent ar+ues his
conduct never at an ti,e inti,ated an intention to donate in favor of petitioner More5o#
2entfer.
Moreover, respondent contends that the alle+ed donation is void for non#co,pliance with the
for,al reBuire,ents set b law. !itin+ "rticle (4'
1@
of the &ew !ivil !ode, respondent avers that
since the a,ount involved e?ceeds P@,000, both the donation and its acceptance ,ust be in
writin+ for the donation to be valid. Respondent further sas there was no si,ultaneous deliver
of the ,one as reBuired b "rt. (4' for instances of oral donation. Respondent also calls our
attention to the sudden chan+e in petitioners> theor. Previousl, before the !ourt of "ppeals, the
petitioners clai,ed that what was donated were the sub*ect properties. /ut before this !ourt, the
insist that what was actuall donated was the ,one used in the purchase of sub*ect properties.
.n this point, we find petitioners> stance without ,erit. "rticle 12-' of the &ew !ivil !ode is
not applicable in this case.
)rin+ to appl "rt. 12-' to the instant case is li:e forcin+ a sBuare pe+ into a round hole. )he
absence of intention to be rei,bursed, the Bualifin+ circu,stance in "rt. 12-', is ne+ated b the
facts of this case. Respondent>s acts contradict an intention to donate the properties to petitioner
More5o#2entfer. 9hen respondent learned that the sale of the beach house and assi+n,ent of the
lease ri+ht were in favor of %ictoria More5o#2entfer, he i,,ediatel filed a co,plaint for
annul,ent of the sale and reconveance of the propert with da,a+es and praer for a writ of
attach,ent. Respondent More5o#2entfer at that ti,e clai,ed the beach house, to+ether with the
lease ri+ht, was donated to her. &oteworth, she had chan+ed her theor, to sa that it was onl
the ,one used in the purchase that was donated to her. /ut in an event, respondent actuall
staed in the beach house in the concept of an owner and shouldered the e?penses for its
,aintenance and repair a,ountin+ to P200,000 for the entire period of his sta for ten wee:s.
Moreover, the appellate court found that respondent is not related or even close to the 2entfer
spouses. .bviousl, respondent had trusted the 2entfer spouses to :eep a ti,e deposit account
for hi, with 7olid /an: for the purpose of ,a:in+ the purchase of the cited properties.
Petitioner More5o#2entfer>s clai, of either cash or propert donation rin+s hollow. " donation is
a si,ple act of liberalit where a person +ives freel of a thin+ or ri+ht in favor of another, who
accepts it.
1;
/ut when a lar+e a,ount of ,one is involved, eBuivalent to P-,20(,'00, based on
the e?chan+e rate in the ear 1002, we are constrained to ta:e the petitioners> clai, of liberalit
of the donor with ,ore than a +rain of salt.
Petitioners could not brush aside the fact that a donation ,ust co,pl with the ,andator for,al
reBuire,ents set forth b law for its validit. 7ince the sub*ect of donation is the purchase
,one, "rt. (4' of the &ew !ivil !ode is applicable. "ccordin+l, the donation of ,one
eBuivalent to P-,20(,'00 as well as its acceptance should have been in writin+. Ct was not.
8ence, the donation is invalid for non#co,pliance with the for,al reBuisites prescribed b law.
"nent the second issue, petitioners insist that since the deed of sale in favor of More5o#2entfer
was neither identified or ,ar:ed nor for,all offered in evidence, the sa,e cannot be +iven an
evidentiar value. )he add that since it was not annulled, it re,ains valid and bindin+. 8ence,
petitioners ar+ue, the principle of solutio indebiti under "rticle 21@4
1(
of the &ew !ivil !ode
should be the applicable provision in the resolution of this controvers. Cf so, the parties un*ustl
enriched would be liable to the other part who suffered thereb b bein+ correspondin+l
in*ured or da,a+ed.
)he Buasi#contract of solutio indebiti har:s bac: to the ancient principle that no one shall enrich
hi,self un*ustl at the e?pense of another.
1'
Ct applies where <1= a pa,ent is ,ade when there
e?ists no bindin+ relation between the paor, who has no dut to pa, and the person who
received the pa,ent, and <2= the pa,ent is ,ade throu+h ,ista:e, and not throu+h liberalit or
so,e other cause.
10
Cn the instant case, records show that a ban:#to#ban: pa,ent was ,ade b respondent 9olff to
petitioner !ross in favor of co#petitioner More5o#2entfer. Respondent was under no dut to
,a:e such pa,ent for the benefit of More5o#2entfer. )here was no bindin+ relation between
respondent and the beneficiar, More5o#2entfer. )he pa,ent was clearl a ,ista:e. 7ince
More5o#2entfer received so,ethin+ when there was no ri+ht to de,and it, she had an obli+ation
to return it.
20
Followin+ "rticle 22
21
of the &ew !ivil !ode, two conditions ,ust concur to declare that a
person has un*ustl enriched hi,self or herself, na,el1 <a= a person is un*ustl benefited, and
<b= such benefit is derived at the e?pense of or to the da,a+e of another.
22
9e are convinced petitioner More5o#2entfer had been un*ustl enriched at the e?pense of
respondent. 7he acBuired the properties throu+h deceit, fraud and abuse of confidence. )he
principle of *ustice and eBuit does not wor: in her favor but in favor of respondent 9olff.
9hatever she ,a have received b ,ista:e fro, and at the e?pense of respondent should thus
be returned to the latter, if the de,ands of *ustice are to be served.
)he !ourt of "ppeals held that respondent was not entitled to the reconveance of the properties
because, inter alia, of the e?press prohibition under the !onstitution
2-
that non#Filipino citi3ens
cannot acBuire land in the Philippines. 9e note, however, that sub*ect properties consist of a
beach house and the lease ri+ht over the land where the beach house stands. )he constitutional
prohibition a+ainst aliens fro, ownin+ land in the Philippines has no actual bearin+ in this case.
" clear distinction e?ists between the ownership of a piece of land and the ,ere lease of the land
where the forei+ner>s house stands. )hus, we see no le+al reason wh reconveance could not be
allowed.
7ince reconveance is the proper re,ed, respondent>s e?penses for the ,aintenance and repair
of the beach house is for his own account as owner thereof. Ct need not be an issue for now.
8owever, we dee, it *ust and eBuitable under the circu,stances to award respondent no,inal
da,a+es in the a,ount of P@0,000,
24
pursuant to "rticles 2221
2@
and 2222
2;
of the &ew !ivil
!ode, since respondent>s propert ri+ht has been invaded throu+h defraudation and abuse of
confidence co,,itted b petitioners.
98DRDF.RD, the petition is hereb DD&CDD. )he assailed Decision, dated June 14, 2001 and
Resolution dated Februar 22, 2002, of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"#$.R. !% &o. 4'2(2
reversin+ the lower court>s *ud+,ent are "FFCRMDD with M.DCFC!")C.&. Petitioners##
particularl the spouses $unter 2entfer and %ictoria More5o#2entfer##are hereb .RDDRDD to1
1. RD!.&%D6 to respondent 8ans Jur+en 9olff the beach house and the lease ri+ht
over the land on which it is situated4 and
2. P"6 respondent 9olff no,inal da,a+es in the a,ount of P@0,000.00.
!osts a+ainst petitioners.
7. .RDDRDD.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Foo/&o/e0
G
"lso Moreno#2entfer in the Records.
1
Rollo, pp. 21#2'. Penned b "ssociate Justice Juan F. DnriBue3, Jr., with "ssociate
Justices Presbitero J. %elasco, Jr., and /ienvenido 2. Rees concurrin+.
2
Cd. at 20#-0.
-
Cd. at -1#-(.
4
Cd. at 10'#100.
@
Cd. at 114#11@.
;
Cd. at 11-.
(
Cd. at 110.
'
Cd. at -(.
0
7ee Cd. at 22#2-, for assi+ned errors.
10
Cd. at 21#2'.
11
H$unterH in the Records.
12
Rollo, p. 2(.
1-
Cd. at 12.
14
Cd. at 1@.
1@
"R). (4'. )he donation of a ,ovable ,a be ,ade orall or in writin+.
"n oral donation reBuires the si,ultaneous deliver of the thin+ or of the
docu,ent representin+ the ri+ht donated.
Cf the value of the personal propert donated e?ceeds five thousand pesos, the
donation and the acceptance shall be ,ade in writin+. .therwise, the donation
shall be void.
1;
!ivil !ode, "rticle (2@.
1(
"R). 21@4. Cf so,ethin+ is received when there is no ri+ht to de,and it, and it was
undul delivered throu+h ,ista:e, the obli+ation to return it arises.
1'
Power !o,,ercial and Cndustrial !orp. v. !ourt of "ppeals, $.R. &o. 110(4@, 20 June
100(, 2(4 7!R" @0(, ;1-.
10
&ational !o,,ercial /an: of 7audi "rabia v. !ourt of "ppeals, $.R. &o. 1242;(, -1
Januar 200-, -0; 7!R" @41, @4(.
20
7ee !itiban:, &.". v. !ourt of "ppeals, $.R. &o. 10(4-4, 10 .ctober 100(, 2'0 7!R"
4@0, 4(@.
21
"R). 22. Dver person who throu+h an act of perfor,ance b another, or an other
,eans, acBuires or co,es into possession of so,ethin+ at the e?pense of the latter
without *ust or le+al +round, shall return the sa,e to hi,.
22
M! Dn+ineerin+, Cnc. v. !ourt of "ppeals, $.R. &o. 10404(, - "pril 2002, -'0 7!R"
11;, 1-'.
2-
7ec. ( in relation to 7ec. - of "rticle ICC.
7ec. (. 7ave in cases of hereditar succession, no private lands shall be transferred
or conveed e?cept to individuals, corporations, or associations Bualified to
acBuire or hold lands of the public do,ain.
7ec. -. 2ands of the public do,ain are classified into a+ricultural, forest or
ti,ber, ,ineral lands, and national par:s. "+ricultural lands of the public do,ain
,a be further classified b law accordin+ to the uses to which the ,a be
devoted. "lienable lands of the public do,ain shall be li,ited to a+ricultural
lands. Private corporations or associations ,a not hold such alienable lands of
the public do,ain e?cept b lease, for a period not e?ceedin+ twent#five ears,
renewable for not ,ore than twent#five ears, and not to e?ceed one thousand
hectares in area. !iti3ens of the Philippines ,a lease not ,ore than five hundred
hectares, or acBuire not ,ore than twelve hectares thereof b purchase, ho,estead
or +rant.
)a:in+ into account the reBuire,ents of conservation, ecolo+, and develop,ent,
and sub*ect to the reBuire,ents of a+rarian refor,, the !on+ress shall deter,ine,
b law, the si3e of lands of the public do,ain which ,a be acBuired, developed,
held, or leased and the conditions therefor.
24
7ee "l,eda v. !ari5o, $.R. &o. 1@214-, 1- Januar 200-, -0@ 7!R" 144.
2@
"R). 2221. &o,inal da,a+es are ad*udicated in order that a ri+ht of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded b the defendant, ,a be vindicated or reco+ni3ed,
and not for the purpose of inde,nifin+ the plaintiff for an loss suffered b hi,.
2;
"R). 2222. )he court ,a award no,inal da,a+es in ever obli+ation arisin+ fro,
an source enu,erated in "rticle 11@(, or in ever case where an propert ri+ht has
been invaded.