UNICAPITAL INC. VS. RAFAEL JOSE CONSING, JR.

G.R 175277 & G.R 175285 | September 11, 2013

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy,
and peace of mind of neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
1. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence
2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life of family rela-
tions of another
3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends 4.
Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs,
lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect or other
personal condition.

Facts:
1. Rafael Jose Consing Jr., an investment banker and his mother, Cecilia Dela
Cruz obtained Php18 million loan from Unicapital, and was secured by
Promissory Notes and Real Estate Mortgage over a 42, 443 sqm-parcel of
land located at Imus, Cavite registered under Dela Cruz’s name as per
Transfer Certificate of Title.
2. Prior to such transaction, Plus Builder’s Inc (PBI), a real estate company,
already showed interest to develop the property into a residential
subdivision. Thus, PBI entered into a joint venture agreement with Unicapital
through its real estate development arm, URI. Dela Cruz, with her son as
attorney-in-fact, decided to sell the same (loan and mortgage over the
property) to Unicapital and PBI.
3. Unicapital through URI bough ½ of the property for Php 21,221, 500
million, while PBI bough the other half for Php 21, 057,000 million. Dela Cruz
asked that the TCT (transfer certificate) be divided into 3 separate titles: for
URI, for PBI, and a road lot.
4. However, the owners of the property, Juanito Tan Teng and Po Willie Yu
informed Unicapital that they are the lawful owners (evidenced by the TCT)
and said they did not sell the property and that Dela Cruz’s title is mere
forgery. Investigation (by PBI) deemed true and both PBI and Unicapital sent
demand letters to Dela Cruz and Consing, Jr. for return payment.
5. A series of complaints followed: Consing Jr. said the incessant
demands/recovery efforts done by PBI and Unicapital constituted
harassment and oppression which affected his personal and professional
life, was coerced to commit a violation of BP Blg. 22, was demanded to pay
 the same when he does not have the necessary funds, among others. He
prayed that he be declared a mere agent of Dela Cruz; Unicapital and PBI be
enjoined for harassing him; and pay him consequential and moral damages.
6. Opposite him, Unicapital et al contended Consing Jr.’s complaint failed to
state a cause of action.
(Cause of action = the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another. To test for failure to state an action is whether the complaint alleges
facts which if true would justify the relief demanded.)
RTC Pasig City stated that Consing Jr’s complaint stated a cause of action for
tort and damages pursuant to Art. 19 of the Civil Code.
7. Unicapital and PBI moved for reconsideration, and was denied by RTC, so
they moved up the motion to dismiss before the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
W/N the complaint is able to convey a cause of action. (And not that
complainant has no cause of action.)
Failure to state a cause of action is properly a ground for a motion to dismiss
under Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

RULING:
In this case, the Court finds that Consing Jr’s complaint properly states
cause of action since the allegations there insufficiently bear out a case
for damages under Articles 19 and 26 of the Civil Code.
Other than the allegations of harassment bearing out a case for damages
under Art. 19, Consing Jr’s complaint states a cause of action for damages
under Art. 26 of the Civil Code.
[[Records reveal that Consing, Jr., in his complaint, alleged that "he has
come to discover that Unicapital and PBI, et al. are speaking of him in a
manner that is inappropriate and libelous; and that they have spread their
virulent version of events in the business and financial community such that
he has suffered and continues to suffer injury upon his good name and
reputation which, after all, is the most sacred and valuable wealth he
possesses - especially considering that he is an investment banker."76 In
similar regard, the hypothetical admission of these allegations may result
into the recovery of damages pursuant to Article 26, and even
Article2219(10), of the Civil Code.]]