Case Summary (G.R. No. 142612)
Petitioner
Oscar and Emerita Angeles, spouses who financed agricultural operations on lanzones-bearing lands through a contract of antichresis and alleged misappropriation by Mercado.
Respondent
Felino Mercado, brother-in-law of Emerita Angeles, who administered the subject lands and purportedly entered into a sosyo-industrial partnership with the Angeles spouses.
Key Dates
• November 19, 1996 – Filing of estafa complaint by Angeles spouses
• January 3, 1997 – Initial prosecution resolution recommending indictment (without counter-affidavit)
• February 26, 1997 – Amended resolution dismissing complaint
• August 4, 1997 – Denial of motion for reconsideration by Provincial Prosecution Office
• February 1, 2000 – Secretary of Justice’s letter-resolution affirming dismissal
• July 29, 2005 – Decision of the Supreme Court
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision)
• Rule 65, Rules of Court (certiorari)
• Articles 1771–1773, Civil Code (partnership)
• Article 2132, Civil Code (antichresis)
• Article 315, Revised Penal Code (estafa)
Antecedent Facts
In November 1992, Mercado induced the Angeles spouses to enter into an antichresis contract over eight parcels of lanzones-planted land owned by Juana Suazo, for a five-year term and ₱210,000 consideration. The spouses remained in Manila and entrusted administration to Mercado. After three years, they demanded accounting; Mercado reported partial earnings and tree purchases but failed to account for 1995. The spouses then discovered the sanglaang-perde contract was titled in Mercado and his wife’s names.
Procedural History
- Angeles spouses filed a complaint for estafa before the Provincial Prosecution Office (PPO).
- PPO’s initial resolution (January 3, 1997) favored prosecution but omitted Mercado’s counter-affidavit.
- Following Mercado’s motion for reconsideration and submission of his counter-affidavit, PPO issued an amended resolution (February 26, 1997) dismissing the complaint for lack of prima facie evidence.
- The PPO denied the Angeles spouses’ motion for reconsideration (August 4, 1997).
- On appeal, the Secretary of Justice reviewed the records and likewise dismissed the appeal (Resolution No. 155, February 1, 2000).
- The Angeles spouses filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Did the Secretary of Justice commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal?
- Was there a partnership between the Angeles spouses and Mercado despite no public instrument or SEC registration?
- If a partnership existed, did Mercado misappropriate partnership proceeds?
- Should the Secretary of Justice have ordered the filing of information for estafa against Mercado?
Analysis of Grave Abuse of Discretion
Grave abuse of discretion requires a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Angeles spouses failed to demonstrate that the Secretary acted arbitrarily or refused to perform a positive duty. Moreover, they did not file a motion for reconsideration of the Secretary’s resolution, forfeiting appellate remedy under established exceptions.
Analysis of Partnership Existence
Articles 1771–1773 of the Civil Code do not invalidate a partnership formed without public instrument where only money (not immovable property) is contributed. Failure to register with the SEC affects notice to third parties but not the partnership’s validity. The Angeles spo
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 142612)
Nature of the Petition
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking annulment of the letter-resolution dated February 1, 2000 (Resolution No. 155) penned by the Secretary of Justice.
- The challenged resolution affirmed the dismissal of an estafa complaint by the Provincial Prosecution Office of Santa Cruz, Laguna in I.S. No. 96-939 (February 28, 1997).
Antecedent Facts
- On November 19, 1996, petitioners Oscar and Emerita Angeles filed a criminal complaint for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code against respondent Felino Mercado.
- Mercado is married to Emerita’s sister Laura, making him the Angeles spouses’ brother-in-law.
- In November 1992, Mercado allegedly persuaded the Angeles spouses to enter into a five-year contract of antichresis (sanglaang-perde) over eight parcels of land planted with lanzones, owned by Juana Suazo, for P210,000 consideration.
- Due to the spouses’ residence in Manila during weekdays, Mercado agreed to administer the lands and handle all paperwork in Laguna.
Contract of Antichresis (Sanglaang-Perde)
- The written contract—signed only by Juana Suazo—vested Mercado and his wife with the right to the fruit of eight parcels (“Lupang Cocal-Lanzonal”) from 1993 to 1997, in consideration of P210,000.
- Suazo was to receive five kaing of lanzones yearly and the right to remove branches annually for the duration.
- After 1997, full possession and benefits of the lanzones trees were to revert to Suazo.
Demand for Accounting and Discovery
- After three years, the Angeles spouses demanded an accounting: Mercado reported P46,210 income in 1993 (reinvested in trees), no fruit in 1994, and no report for 1995.
- Upon demand, the spouses discovered the antichresis contract was registered solely in Mercado and his spouse’s names.
Mercado’s Counter-Affidavit and Claim of Partnership
- Mercado denied estafa and alleged an existing industrial partners