Case Summary (G.R. No. 156081)
Relevant Facts
The contract between FEPI and Go involved the sale of Lot 17, Block 38, with a total purchase price of P4,304,000. Go paid a substantial downpayment, but FEPI failed to fulfill its contractual obligations regarding property development and the issuance of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). In response to FEPI's inactivity, Go initiated a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and subsequently filed a Complaint-Affidavit for estafa under Articles 316 and 318 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that FEPI misrepresented its ownership of the property.
Legal Proceedings and Initial Responses
The City Prosecutor of Pasig City initially dismissed the estafa complaint due to insufficient evidence, arguing that the relevant contract did not explicitly state that FEPI was the owner of the property and that no Deed of Sale had been executed. The prosecutor determined the case fell outside his jurisdiction, as HLURB held exclusive authority over real estate disputes.
Department of Justice Involvement
Go appealed the City Prosecutor's decision to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which found a prima facie basis for the estafa charge and directed the filing of an information against the petitioners. The DOJ underscored that FEPI’s actions amounted to misrepresentation as it sold property while knowing it lacked legal ownership. As a result, estafa charges were officially filed against the petitioners.
Petition for Review
Petitioners sought a review from the Court of Appeals, challenging the DOJ's resolution and arguing that a petition for review under Rule 43 was the appropriate course of action. They contended the DOJ's interpretation of the elements of estafa and the claims regarding their representation as owners were incorrect.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that a petition for review under Rule 43 cannot be used to challenge the Secretary of Justice's ruling, as this function is not quasi-judicial. They emphasized that inquiries during preliminary investigations are not trials and noted the distinguishing elements of quasi-judicial processes compared to executive decision-making by the DOJ.
Supreme Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decisions, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the DOJ is not quasi-judicial as defined within Rule 43. The ruling clarified that the preliminary investigation by the prose
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 156081)
Case Background
- This case involves a review on certiorari of the Decision dated September 2, 2002, and the Resolution dated November 12, 2002, by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67388.
- The appellate court dismissed the petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, deeming it an erroneous mode of appeal from the Secretary of Justice's Resolution.
- The Secretary of Justice modified a Resolution from the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City, directing the filing of an information for estafa against the petitioners.
Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Ferdinand T. Santos, Robert John Sobrepeña, and Rafael Perez de Tagle Jr., who are corporate directors and officers of Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI).
- Respondent: Wilson Go, a buyer of property from FEPI.
Factual Context
- On October 17, 1995, FEPI entered into a Project Agreement with Manila Southcoast Development Corporation (MSDC) to develop land in Nasugbu, Batangas.
- FEPI was authorized to market and sell subdivision lots, including Lot 17, Block 38, which respondent Go agreed to purchase for P4,304,000.
- Go fulfilled his payment obligations, but FEPI failed to develop the property or provide the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT).
Events Leading to Litigation
- FEPI claimed project delays due to opposition to its application under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and a cease-and-desist order from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
- Go demanded a refund of his payments when FEPI did not fulfi