You're currently signed in as:
User

JUAN BALBUENA v. LEONA APARICIO SABAY

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

2011-09-12
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Considering petitioner's wrongful retention of respondents' titles, we affirm the lower courts' award of moral damages in favor of respondents. "The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith."[56]  "Bad faith is defined in jurisprudence as a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self interest or ill will or for ulterior purpose."[57]  Respondents were able to prove that petitioner acted in bad faith in keeping the titles despite its knowledge that there was no bond or real estate mortgage to justify its retention thereof.  Petitioner knew that it needed a real estate mortgage to keep the titles, as shown by the fact that its officer even went to respondents' home to try to obtain their signatures to a deed of real estate mortgage (without success).[58]  Despite its failure to obtain such bond, petitioner bull-headedly kept the titles.
2011-02-09
VELASCO JR., J.
A careful reading of Art. 1387 of the Code vis-à-vis its Art. 1385 would plainly show that the presumption of fraud in case of alienations by onerous title only applies to the person who made such alienation, and against whom some judgment has been rendered in any instance or some writ of attachment has been issued.  A third person is not and should not be automatically presumed to be in fraud or in collusion with the judgment debtor.  In allowing rescission in case of an alienation by onerous title, the third person who received the property conveyed should likewise be a party to the fraud.[57]  As clarified by Art. 1385(2) of the Code, so long as the person who is in legal possession of the property did not act in bad faith, rescission cannot take place.  Thus, in all instances, as to the third person in legal possession of the questioned property, good faith is presumed. Accordingly, it is upon the person who alleges bad faith or fraud that rests the burden of proof.[58]