On June 23, 1982, Luis purchased from the estate of the late Antonina two parcels of land located at Tacurong Sultan Kudarat. These two parcels were part of the three parcels of land leased by Antonina to Manny in 1964 over which Manny put up commercial buildings for rent. Under said lease contract, Manny was supposed to pay the rentals for the land out of the rents he would collect from the tenants of the building. The lease was for 10 years but when it ended in 1974, the same was allegedly renewed since the construction of the commercial buildings had yet to be completed at that time. This renewal was evidenced by a notarized lease contract between Manny and Antonina.
When Antonina died Manny started remitting his rent to the court appointed administrator of her estate. The administrator however advised Manny to stop collecting rentals from the tenants of the buildings he constructed because Luis had already purchased the two parcels of land and had been collecting the rentals from the tenants of the building, representing himself as the new owner the property. Manny thus filed a complaint against Luis. He accused Luis of inducing the heirs of Antonina to sell the property thereby violating his leasehold rights over it. Manny said that Luis is guilty of violating Article 1314 of the Civil Code by inducing the heirs of Antonina to violate the lease contract entered into by Antonina in his favor, known as tortuous interference.
Luis however denied the accusation. He said that he did not induce the heirs but that the latter voluntarily sold the property to him because they were in dire need of money to pay the obligations of the deceased. He also denied interfering with Manny’s leasehold rights because when he purchased the lands there was no longer any lease contract covering the lands. Based on his personal investigation and inquiry there were no liens and encumbrances on the lands. He said he inquired from the lawyer who supposedly notarized the lease contract that expired in 1974 and the lawyer showed him four copies of the lease renewal which were all unsigned. Was Luis guilty of tortuous interference?
No. The elements of tortuous interference in contractual relations are: (a) existence of a valid contract; (b) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the contract and (c) interference of the third person without legal justification.
In this case, the first element is present as there is indeed a notarized lease contract. Settled is the rule that until overcome by clear, strong and convincing evidence, a notarized document continues to be prima facie evidence of the facts that gave rise to its execution and delivery.
The second element however is not present. Luis conducted his own personal investigation and inquiry which unearthed no suspicious circumstance that would make a cautious man probe deeper and watch out for any conflicting claim over the property. The property’s title bore no indication of the leasehold interest of Manny. Even the registry of property has no record of the same. Besides even if Luis knew of the contract, such knowledge alone is not sufficient to make him liable for tortuous interference. He is liable only if there is no legal justification or excuse for his action which is the third element. He must have acted with malice or must have been driven by purely impious reasons to injure Manny. In this case Luis’ purchase of the property was merely an advancement of his financial or economic interest. A person is not a malicious interferer if his conduct is impelled by a proper business interest.
Moreover, Luis did not induce the heirs of Antonina to sell the property to him. "Induce" refers to situations where a person causes another to choose one course of conduct by persuasion or intimidation. In this case, the decision of the heirs to sell the property was completely of their own volition and Luis did absolutely nothing to influence their judgement.
This case is one of damage without injury. "Injury" is the invasion of a legal right while "damage" is the hurt, loss or harm which results from the injury. There is damage without injury where the loss or harm is not the result of a violation of a legal duty. Luis acted without malice in the conduct complained of. His action precludes recovery of damages (Lagon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 119107, March 18, 2005. 452 SCRA 616).