Facts:
Respondent
Jintaro Uehara was convicted in the
Court of First Instance of Davao for
estafa. The complaint alleged that on
February 18, 1932, Uehara committed estafa by selling a parcel of real estate standing in his name, although he had previously sold the same property to
Antonio Pichon on
August 5, 1930, and that by virtue of the second sale Uehara defrauded Pichon out of the value of the property. The land involved was
Lot No. 210 of the cadastral survey of Davao. In the cadastral proceedings, the property was adjudicated to Uehara, and the adjudication order was dated
June 11, 1930. On
August 5, 1930, Uehara sold the property by
pacto de retro for
P2,000 and registered the contract in the registry of deeds of Davao. The original certificate of title and its duplicate were issued in Manila on
October 15, 1931 and were entered in the registry books in Davao on
November 11, 1931. When the pacto de retro fell due on
December 4, 1930, Uehara unsuccessfully attempted negotiations with Pichon for an extension of redemption. Uehara then sued in the Court of First Instance of Davao, claiming that the August 5, 1930 pacto de retro was a
false and fictitious document, not reflecting the parties’ true intent, and that it was, in effect, a mortgage with
usurious interest. The case was heard with both parties presenting evidence and was submitted for decision on
December 21, 1931. While that case was pending, on
February 18, 1932, Uehara sold the same property by a second pacto de retro to
Bernarda Gatica for
P2,000. On
March 31, 1932, the Court of First Instance ruled against Uehara and held that the August 5, 1930 contract was a valid pacto de retro, not a loan. Uehara appealed. While the appeal was pending, the redemption period under the second pacto de retro expired without redemption, so ownership was consolidated in
Bernarda Gatica, and a corresponding certificate of title was issued under the
Land Registration Act (Act No. 496). On
July 20, 1933, in
G. R. No. 37486 (in the civil case
Uehara v. Pichon), the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of First Instance’s holding that the August 5, 1930 contract was a valid sale. The Solicitor-General argued on the criminal case that Uehara violated
section 119 of the Land Registration Act; the Court affirmed the conviction for
estafa under
Article 316, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code. A dissenting opinion, however, concluded that Uehara was entitled to acquittal because he was the legal owner at the time of the second sale and could not be convicted under Article 316(1).
Issues:
Did the respondent’s second sale of the same property, executed on February 18, 1932 while ownership had been reflected by his Torrens title, constitute punishable
estafa under
Article 316, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, and/or did it fall under
section 119 of Act No. 496?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: