View full case

ORLANDO P. NAYA v. SPS. ABRAHAM

FACTS:

Orlando P. Naya was the owner of a residential land located in Talisay, Cebu province. On December 14, 1987, Orlando entered into a Contract to Sell with Abraham and Guillerma Abing, wherein he agreed to sell two parcels of land to them for the price of P60,000. Under the terms of the contract, the Abing spouses were to make monthly installment payments for five years. Orlando also had the liberty to sell the lots to other persons if the Abing spouses failed to make payment within 60 days. Guillerma Abing made a downpayment of P20,000 and remitted monthly installments in excess of the agreed amount. Unknown to Guillerma, Orlando sold the properties to William Po for P200,000 and registered the Deed of Absolute Sale with the Register of Deeds. However, Orlando never informed the Abing spouses about the sale to Po. Guillerma continued making partial payments to Orlando, bringing the total amount paid to P54,000. The Abing spouses were constructing a fence and a house on the lots when they were evicted by Po. It was then that they learned about the sale to Po. Guillerma filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Orlando and his agent, Loreta Bacaltos. An information for estafa was filed against Orlando, and the case proceeded to trial. On the scheduled date for Orlando to adduce evidence, his counsel failed to appear.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Orlando Naya committed estafa under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

  2. Whether the sale of the subject lots to William Po was fraudulent.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, convicting Orlando P. Naya of estafa under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Naya was found guilty of unlawfully selling, transferring, and conveying the subject lots to William Po without informing the spouses Abing of the sale.

  2. The Court did not explicitly state its ruling on whether the sale to William Po was fraudulent. However, based on the facts of the case and the conviction of Naya for estafa, it can be inferred that the Court found the sale to be fraudulent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Estafa under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is committed when a person, with intent to defraud another, sells, transfers, or conveys any real property or interest therein, which is encumbered, to the damage and prejudice of the buyer.

  • Honesty and fairness are essential in contracts and transactions and parties are expected to act in good faith and with the highest degree of transparency and diligence in their dealings.

  • Fraudulent sale of property, especially without the knowledge and consent of the rightful owners, can result in criminal liability for estafa.