Title
Vda. Bagatua vs. Revilla
Case
G.R. No. L-12247
Decision Date
Aug 26, 1958
Family alleges fraud in property sale; prosecutors dismiss estafa complaint, upheld by courts due to lack of grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12247)

Background and Property Transfer

The property in question, measuring 43,371 square meters, was registered in the name of Apolonio Bagatua. Following his death, a transfer of ownership occurred through a document entitled "Settlement of Estate and Donation of Real Property" executed by Beatriz Ramos and her children on June 2, 1953. This document facilitated the donation of the subject lot to the children, who collectively secured a new certificate of title (TCT No. 21995). Subsequently, the Bagatuas attempted to subdivide the lot, employing real estate broker Burgos L. Pangilinan.

Allegations Against the Broker

On June 21, 1956, Rodrigo Bagatua, representing the family, accused Burgos L. Pangilinan of estafa, claiming he misled them into signing documents under the guise of subdivision requirements, one of which was a deed of sale leading to a substantial financial loss of P13,432. Following this accusation, the Assistant City Attorney initiated a preliminary investigation, during which both parties were legally represented, and evidence was presented.

Dismissal of the Complaint

The investigation concluded with a recommendation from the Assistant City Attorney to dismiss the case due to a lack of merit, which led to the official dismissal of the complaint. The appellants, dissatisfied with this outcome, took legal action through a petition for mandamus against the City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney, asserting that the dismissal constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The respondents countered with a motion to dismiss, arguing that their actions were discretionary and did not reveal any abuse of power.

Court Proceedings and Legal Principles

In its decision, the Court of First Instance of Quezon City agreed with the motion to dismiss, emphasizing that the officials' functions were not ministerial but discretionary. The Court highlighted the legal framework from Republic Act No. 537, which mandates the City Attorney to investigate criminal charges and determine the merit before filing. The prosecution's discretion to dismiss cases is predicated on the absence of sufficient evidence, thus preventing frivolous litigation.

Judicial Review and Affirmation of Lower Court's Decision

The Supreme Court scrutinized the appeals presented by the petitioners, particularly their assertion of grave abuse of discretion, and found no evidence supporting this claim. The Court articulated that the absence of improper m

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.