Wrongdoers

Where the parties to an illegal contract are in pari delicto (equally at fault), no affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the other. This is the principle applied in this case of Vicente.

The case involved a parcel of agricultural land containing an area of 18.15 hectares of which only about 3 to 4 hectares are actually planted with sugarcane as the rest contained limestone soil. Vicente acquired the property from his parents on July 6, 1971. Subsequently, or on April 19, 1990, Vicente sold the property to Nardo, his godson and nephew purportedly for the price of P10,000. A month later or on May 19, 1990 Nardo transferred the property to Nick for P30,000.

On October 11, 1993, more than three years following the transfer of the property to Nardo and the latter to Nick, Vicente filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court against Nardo and Nick for annulment of the Deeds of Sale he executed in favor of Nardo and the Deed of Sale Nardo executed in favor of Nick. Vicente claimed that his transaction with Nardo covering the parcel of land was a contract of lease, not a Deed of Sale. Furthermore, Vicente claimed that even if it was really a sale, the said Deed and the subsequent sale thereof to Nick were null and void for being violative of the retention limits of 5 hectares imposed by R.A. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Was Vicente correct?

No. Even assuming that the disposition of the property by Vicente was contrary to law (RA 6657), he would still have no remedy under the law as he and Nardo were in pari delicto, hence he is not entitled to affirmative relief – one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands. Where both the plaintiff and the defendant are equally at fault, the court will decide in favor of the defendant or in favor of the one in possession of the subject matter in question.

The proposition is universal that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation.

The principle of pari delicto is grounded on two premises: first, that the courts should not lend their good offices to mediating disputes among wrongdoers; and second, that denying judicial relief to an admitted wrongdoer is an effective means of deterring illegality.

Thus to serve as both a sanction and a deterrent, the law or the court will not aid either party to an illegal agreement and will leave them where it finds them (Acabal vs. Acabal G.R. 148376, March 31, 2005).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]