Tayag v Lacson

Tayag v. Lacson Parties involved: Petitioner - Tayag (the person who wants to buy the property) Respondent - Lacson (owner of the land) Farers - the persons who were faring the land of the Lacsons. F!"T#: 





 



The Lacsons own lands in Papanga. The properties were tenanted agricultural land which were tenanted by the farers. The farers e$ecuted a %eed of !ssignent in favor favor of Petitioner. Petitioner. The %eed of !ssignent states the ff: Farers will assign their rights to the lands to Petitioner in consideration of P&'s. eter* o The P&' will will be paid paid when when the +lega +legall iped ipedie ients nts to the sale of the propert property y to the o petitioner no longer e$isted., The petitioner was granted the e$clusive right to buy the property if the farers and the o Respondents agree to sell the p roperty Petitioner then started giving various aounts of oney to the farers as partial payents. The farers issued receipts. Petitioner then ased to eet up with the farers to inali/e their deal. 0owever1 the farers did not show up. 2nstead1 they sent a letter to petitioners. 2n the letter1 they said that they will not sell the land to 3r. Tayag. 2nstead1 they will sell the land to the Lacsons. Petitioner iled a coplaint: 0e ased the court to i$ a period win which to pay the P&'s. eter o 0e ased the court to issue a writ of preliinary in4unction to en4oin: o The farers fro rescinding the %eed of !ssignent  The respondents fro alienatingencubering their land 0e also ased for daages because he clais that the respondents induced the farers to o violate their contracts. contracts. %efense of the Respondent: They never induced the farers to violate their contracts with petitioner* o The farers had no right to enter into the %eed of !ssignents because: o They are not the owners of the land1 they are ere land tillers The deed of assignent is contrary to the "!RP Law and other agrarian laws. %efense of the Farers: o They did not e$ecute any %eed of !ssignent  5hat actually happened was that they got loans fro petitioner and that 3r. 3r. Tayag Tayag deceived o the into signing the deed of assignent. Farers thought that what they were signing were the receipts1 but instead1 what  they signed were %eeds of !ssignent. Petitioner presented his evidence: the %eed of assignent1 the letter1 and the receipts. Respondent iled a 3otion to %isiss RT" - denied the 3T%1 issued the preliinary in4unction o Respondents appealed the orders "! - reversed the RT" o "! en4oined the RT" fro proceeding with the civil case. "! said that the issuance of the preliinary in4unction was wrong. Petitioner appealed. 0ence this case.  



 





  





2##67: 5hether the issuance of the preliinary in4unction was proper.

07L%: 8o. R!T29: 





For the court to issue a writ of preliinary in4unction1 the ff. re. ust be satisied: There ust be a clear and unistaable right* o ! violation of such right* o o There is an urgent necessity for the writ in order to prevent serious daage. 2n4unction is a preservative reedy aied at protecting substantial rights and interests. 2n the absence of a clear legal right1 there can be no writ of preliinary in4unction. 2n the case at bar1 petitioners have no clear legal right: The respondents are the owners of the land. Thus1 they cannot be en4oined fro o encuberingalienating their own property. !s registered owners of the lands1 they can do whatever they want with it e$cept in cases stated in the law. The deed of assignent will not bind the respondents because: o The farers are not the owners* The respondents were not privy to the deed of assignent* Petitioner testiied1 that he did not eetnow any of the respondents prior to the iling of the coplaint. The respondents did not consent to the deed of assignent  2n fact1 they said that the deed of assignent is void because it violated the "!RP law. The principal relief of asing the court to i$ a period wherein the petitioner will pay the P&' is also not proper. 2n fact1 based on the face of the coplaint1 petitioner has no cause of action. o ased on the deed of assignent1 the lands will be sold only when +there are no legal ipedients e$isting., !ccording to the petitioner the ff. are the legal ipedients: Respondents have not given their consent to the sale The %!R have not approved the sale 2t is only upon the concurrence of the two events will the petitioner be obliged to pay the P&'. There is no showing that respondents agreed to the sale or the approval of  the %!R have been obtained. Lastly1 the respondents were only impleaded because it was alleged that they induced o the farmers to violate the contract. In violation of Art. 1314 of the NCC The elements of tortious interference are as follows There is a valid contract   A 3rd party !nows the e"istence of such a contract  The 3rd party interfered with such contract w#o any legal $usti%ication. The 3rd party must be impelled by malice The interference must not be due to o &roper business interest' or (ecause the 3rd party is %inancially interested )hen such motives impelled the 3rd party* he cannot be considered a malicious interferer. +ssentially* the mere fact that a 3rd party interfered in a contractual relation would not automatically ma!e him a malicious interferer. In the case* the only evidence presented by the petitioner is the letter. ,owever* the letter only said that the farmers -decided to sell the land to the respondents because they were harassed by petitioner and they would not want to cause any problems for the respondents  who could cause their eviction because they e"ecuted the deed of  assignments in violation of agrarian laws./  













 







  



 









In fact* petitioner himself admitted that he -$ust heard/ that the respondents induced the farmers. +ven if the respondents received an offer from the farmers* they cannot be en$oined from entertaining#negotiating with the farmers. The respondents were not even e"pected to warn the farmers that if they e"ecute the deed of assignments* they would violate the agrarian laws. 



