NARCISO R. LACUNA AND FELISA P. LACUNA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND CEFERINA S. ARGALLON, RESPONDENTS.

In a criminal case^[1] brought
against herein petitioner Narciso R. Lacuna before
the Court of First Instance (CFI for short), now Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Lacuna was accused of falsely selling to herein private respondent Ceferina Argallon (complainant
therein) his rights to a house and lot located in Project 4, Quezon City for the sum of P5,000.00.  After the usual preliminary investigation,
trial was held with the CFI eventually
acquitting Lacuna with an express finding that the fact from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist.

In a civil case subsequently filed against Lacuna and his wife,
Felisa P. Lacuna (his co-petitioner herein) the
spouses were absolved from any liability, the CFI making use of the reference
adverted to in the decision in the criminal
case re the non-existence of any causative fact for liability.

On appeal the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), now the Court
of Appeals^[2]
(CA) affirmed the judgment of the trial
court.  The decretal
part of the IAC decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision
appealed from, it being consistent with the facts and law applicable, the same
is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

Costs against the plaintiff-appellant.

SO ORDERED.”

(p. 55, Rollo)

However, on a Motion for Reconsideration,
the IAC thru Mr. Justice Porfirio Sison, reversed itself, and made the LACU­NAS civilly liable.  The Motion for Reconsideration of the
re­versal having been denied, the LACUNAS filed the instant petition for certiorari
(actually a petition for review), which We find impressed with merit.

In the aforementioned assailed resolution, the IAC ruled (in
reversing itself) that the LACUNAS are civilly liable because Narciso Lacuna had signed a receipt couched in the
following terms:

“Received the sum of P5,000.00 from Mrs. C. Argallon as payment of right of
the house and lot in E. Evangelista St.,
Project. no. 4.” (Exhibit “E”) (p. 6, Decision, CA)

We note however
that the receipt was merely a simulated one to accommodate Argallon
(so that she could pretend to her Chinese capitalist Chua Simeon, that she,
Argallon, had really purchased a storage place for
the sacks which consti­tuted the business engaged in by her and the Chinese boyfriend).

We cannot give Our judicial imprimatur to the reversing
resolution of the IAC.  While factual
findings of the IAC are generally binding on Us, one notable exception is when
there are erroneous inferences made from facts apparently proved.

In the instant case there are matters evidencing wrong inferences
by the IAC.  For instance the receipt
itself should not be considered the equivalent of a deed of sale of
realty.  The alleged price of P5,000.00, although compara­tively
inadequate for the purchase of a house and lot in Project 4, Quezon City, was still in 1961
quite a sizeable amount, and businesswoman that she was, Argallon
would not have accepted a mere receipt for such an important transaction.  The receipt cannot of course even be the
basis of the registration of the purchase in the Registry of Property.  For another, the words “San Juan, Rizal” were crossed
out in the receipt.  Why?  Argallon said (at
the preliminary investigation) that this was because payment was effected by
her inside the Security Bank branch at Sta. Mesa Boulevard, where she had
intended to obtain the money on the same day. 
Said date however was a SUNDAY, and not therefore a banking day.  At the trial itself, Argallon
said the receipt was given in the warehouse of the NARIC Branch also on Sta. Mesa Boulevard.  The
fact of the matter is that the receipt was given in San Juan, Rizal (with no
money changing hands precisely because of the intended simulation.)

Then there is the unrebutted allegation
of Narciso that he and Argallon
had a live-in relationship for several years. 
This explains why Narciso accommodated Argallon.  No wonder
the trial court in the criminal case not only acquitted Narciso
but also categorically stated that the fact from which the civil liability
would arise does not exist.

WHEREFORE, the IAC resolution dated July 20, 1984 is SET ASIDE, and a new one is
hereby rendered reinstating
the IAC decision dated January 17,
1984.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr.,
Padilla, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Bidin, J., no part, I participated in the appealed decision.

^[1] Criminal Case No. 69027.

^[2] Penned by Court of Appeals Justice Porfirio V. Sison (Ponente), with Justices Abdulwahid
A. Bidin, Marcelino R. Veloso, and Desiderio P. Jurado, concurring.