GR 152317; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152317 November 10, 2004
VICTORIA MOREÑO-LENTFER, GUNTER LENTFER and JOHN CRAIGIE YOUNG CROSS, petitioners, vs. HANS JURGEN WOLFF, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Gunter Lentfer, his wife Victoria Moreño-Lentfer, and John Craigie Young Cross entered into a transaction with respondent Hans Jurgen Wolff, a German citizen. Respondent agreed to purchase a beach house owned by Cross and the assignment of its underlying lease rights, with the total consideration to be paid by Wolff. However, through a notarial deed, the property was surreptitiously made to appear as sold to Moreño-Lentfer for a nominal sum. Upon discovery, Wolff filed a complaint for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint for failure to establish a cause of action. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding petitioners jointly and severally liable to repay Wolff the purchase price he advanced, plus expenses for repairs, with legal interest.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the payment made by respondent Wolff for the property can be considered a donation to petitioner Moreño-Lentfer under Article 1238 of the Civil Code, thereby absolving petitioners of the obligation to return the money.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. Article 1238, which provides that payment by a third person without intention of reimbursement is a donation, is inapplicable. The provision presupposes a pre-existing creditor-debtor relationship, which is absent here. The transaction was a contract of sale where Wolff was the true purchaser, not a third person paying another’s pre-existing debt.
The facts negate any donative intent. Wolff’s immediate filing of a complaint for annulment upon discovering the fraudulent deed is conduct utterly inconsistent with an intention to donate. Furthermore, petitioners’ shifting theory—first claiming the property was donated, then the money—undermines their credibility. The principle of solutio indebiti under Article 2154 applies instead, as Wolff paid the purchase price under the mistaken belief he was buying the property for himself. Petitioners, having received something without right, are obligated to return it. The Court also awarded nominal damages for the violation of Wolff’s rights.