G.R. No. 17647 ; February 28, 1964
HERMINIA GODUCO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA B. CASTRO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Herminia Goduco filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover a broker’s commission from respondent Maria B. Castro. Goduco alleged she informed Castro about a 100-hectare land in Parañaque, which Castro subsequently purchased for P150,000. Goduco claimed Castro, as the true buyer, used Sostenes Campillo as a dummy and executed the deed of sale in his name. She further asserted that Castro deducted P7,500 as Goduco’s commission from the purchase price, information she purportedly learned from Dr. Francisco, the son of the property owner. Goduco sought the commission, plus moral damages and attorney’s fees.
Respondent Castro denied the allegations. She stated she repeatedly informed Goduco she was not interested in buying due to financial constraints, specifically properties under levy. Castro maintained Campillo was not her dummy but the lessee of her hotel building and was financially capable of purchasing the property himself. She argued the complaint stated no cause of action against her, as any claim for commission should be directed against the property owner or her authorized agent who promised payment, with whom Castro had no privity of contract.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Goduco’s complaint for recovery of a broker’s commission, based on insufficient evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the insufficiency of evidence to establish a cause of action. For Goduco to recover a commission from Castro, she must prove by preponderance of evidence that Castro was the real purchaser and that there was an agreement, express or implied, making Castro liable for the commission. The Court found Goduco’s evidence sorely lacking.
Goduco’s testimony that Castro was the real buyer and deducted the commission was based entirely on hearsay information from Dr. Francisco, who was not presented as a witness. The documentary evidence contradicted her claims. The deed of sale (Exhibit “E”) was executed by the owner, Mauricia Antonio, in favor of Sostenes Campillo, with Castro merely signing as a witness. The written authority (Exhibit “D”) given by the owner’s son-in-law, Donato Ciriaco, promising a commission, did not mention Goduco and created no obligation for Castro. Even assuming Castro was the buyer, any claim for the commission would accrue against the party who promised it—the seller or her agent—not the buyer. The Court concluded Goduco’s case rested on “surmise and conjectures” and failed to meet the required evidentiary standard. Her attempt to introduce irrelevant evidence about her patriotic achievements did not bolster her claim. The adverse claim registered by Castro’s heirs on the property was deemed immaterial to the issues of the case.