You are on page 1of 3

Daywalt v Corporacion Endencia agreed upon receiving the Torrens title

G.R. No. L-13505 to the land in question, to deliver the same to the
February 4, 1919 Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Manila, to be
Topic: 1314 Inducement to Violate forwarded to the Crocker National Bank in San
Francisco, where it was to be delivered to the
Facts: plaintiff upon payment of a balance of P3,100.
1902, Teodorica Endencia, executed a contract
whereby she obligated herself to convey to Geo. 1909, Torrens certificate was in time issued
W. Daywalt, a tract of land. It was agreed that a to Teodorica Endencia, but in the course of the
deed should be executed as soon as the title to proceedings relative to the registration of the
the land should be perfected by proceedings in land, it was found by official survey that the area
the Court of Land Registration and a Torrens of the tract inclosed in the boundaries stated in
certificate should be produced therefore in the the contract was about 1.248 hectares of 452
name of Teodorica Endencia. A decree hectares as stated in the contract. Teodorica
recognizing the right of Teodorica as owner was Endencia became reluctant to transfer the whole
entered in said court in August 1906, but the tract to the purchaser, asserting that she never
Torrens certificate was not issued until later. The intended to sell so large an amount of land and
parties, however, met immediately upon the that she had been misinformed as to its area.
entering of this decree and made a new contract
with a view to carrying their original agreement Teodorica Endencia was ordered to convey the
into effect. This new contract was executed in the entire tract of land to Daywalt pursuant to the
form of a deed of conveyance and bears date of contract of October 3, 1908, which contract was
August 16, 1906. The stipulated price was fixed declared to be in full force and effect. This decree
at P4,000. appears to have become finally effective in the
early part of the year 1914.
The second contract was not immediately carried
into effect for the reason that the Torrens La Corporacion de los Padres Recoletos, is a
certificate was not yet obtainable and in fact said religious corporation. The same corporation was
certificate was not issued until the period of at this time also the owner of another estate on
performance contemplated in the contract had the same island immediately adjacent to the land
expired. Accordingly, upon October 3, 1908, the which Teodorica Endencia had sold to Geo. W.
parties entered into still another agreement, Daywal.
superseding the old, by which Teodorica
When the Torrens certificate was finally (Exhibit C) with S. B. Wakefield, of San Francisco,
issued in 1909 in favor of Teodorica for the sale and disposal of said lands to a sugar
Endencia, she delivered it for safekeeping to the growing and milling enterprise, the successful
defendant corporation, and it was then taken to launching of which depended on the ability of
Manila where it remained in the custody and Daywalt to get possession of the land and the
under the control of P. Juan Labarga the Torrens certificate of title. In order to accomplish
procurador and chief official of the defendant this end, the plaintiff returned to the Philippine
corporation, until the deliver thereof to the Islands, communicated his arrangement to the
plaintiff was made compulsory by reason of defendant, and made repeated efforts to secure
the decree of the Supreme Court in 1914. the registered title for delivery in compliance
with said agreement with Wakefield. Teodorica
During a period extending from June 1, Endencia seems to have yielded her consent to
1909, to May 1, 1914, Father Sanz, the the consummation of her contract, but the
caretaker of the adjacent land, entered into an Torrens title was then in the possession of Padre
arrangement with her whereby large numbers of Juan Labarga in Manila, who refused to deliver
cattle belonging to the defendant corporation the document.
were pastured upon said land.
Plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant Issue: WON La Corporacion de los Padres
corporation the sum of P500,000, as damages, on Recoletos is liable to Daywalt based on 1314
the ground that said corporation, for its own
selfish purposes, unlawfully induced Teodorica Held:
Endencia to refrain from the performance of her No. We deem it well to dispose of the contention
contract for the sale of the land in question and that the members of the defendant corporation,
to withhold delivery to the plaintiff of the Torrens in advising and prompting Teodorica Endencia
title, and further, maliciously and without not to comply with the contract of sale, were
reasonable cause, maintained her in her defense actuated by improper and malicious motives. The
to the action of specific performance which was trial court found that this contention was not
finally decided in favor of the plaintiff in this sustained, observing that while it was true that
court. the circumstances pointed to an entire sympathy
on the part of the defendant corporation with the
Because in 1911, it appears, the plaintiff, as the efforts of Teodorica Endencia to defeat the
owner of the land which he had bought from plaintiff's claim to the land, the fact that its
Teodorica Endencia entered into a contract officials may have advised her not to carry the
contract into effect would not constitute HOWEVER, the basis for damages of Daywalt
actionable interference with such contract. It may from corporacion is that the defendant
be added that when one considers the hardship corporation, having notice of the sale of the land
that the ultimate performance of that contract in question to Daywalt, might have been enjoined
entailed on the vendor, and the doubt in which by the latter from using the property for grazing
the issue was involved — to the extent that the its cattle thereon. That the defendant corporation
decision of the Court of the First Instance was is also liable in this action for the damage
unfavorable to the plaintiff and the Supreme resulting to the plaintiff from the wrongful use
Court itself was divided — the attitude of the and occupation of the property has also been
defendant corporation, as exhibited in the already determined. But it will be observed that
conduct of its procurador, Juan Labarga, and in order to sustain this liability it is not necessary
other members of the order of the Recollect to resort to any subtle exegesis relative to the
Fathers, is not difficult to understand. To our liability of a stranger to a contract for unlawful
mind a fair conclusion on this feature of the case interference in the performance thereof. It is
is that father Juan Labarga and his associates enough that defendant use the property with
believed in good faith that the contract could not notice that the plaintiff had a prior and better
be enforced and that Teodorica would be right.
wronged if it should be carried into effect. Any
advice or assistance which they may have given
was, therefore, prompted by no mean or
improper motive. It is not, in our opinion, to be
denied that Teodorica would have surrendered
the documents of title and given possession of the
land but for the influence and promptings of
members of the defendants corporation. But we
do not credit the idea that they were in any
degree influenced to the giving of such advice by
the desire to secure to themselves the paltry
privilege of grazing their cattle upon the land in
question to the prejudice of the just rights of the
plaintiff.