Daywalt v.

La Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos Recoletos, et al

FACTS In 1902, Endencia executed a contract whereby she obligated herself to convey to plaintif a tract
of land. It was agreed that a deed should be executed as soon as the title to the land should be
perfected and a Torrens certificate should be produced therefore in the name of Endencia. True enough
the decree had been obtained but the Torrens certificate was not issued until later. All the same, the
parties entered into another contract with a view to carrying the original agreement (i.e. 1902 contract)
into effect. Still, a third agreement was entered into between the parties in 1909; this time Endencia
promised that upon receiving the Torrens title, she will immediately deliver the same to Daywalt. In
time, the Torrens certificate was issued. Haplessly for the plaintif, Endencia now became reluctant to
turn over the same for the reason that it was not her intention to sell so large an amount of land as what
was found by the oicial survey. Eventually, the controversy—one diferent from this case—had reached
the Supreme Court which Court found for Daywalt; the Court ordered Endencia to convey the whole
tract to Daywalt. La Corporacion de los Padres Recoletos, is a religious corporation, who owned an
estate on the same island immediately adjacent to the land which Endencia had sold to Daywalt— for
many years the Recoletos Fathers had maintained large herds of cattle on the estate. Father Sanz, the
person in charge with the farm’s management, had long been well acquainted with Teodorica Endencia
and exerted over her an inluence and ascendency due to his religious character as well as to the
personal friendship which existed between them. Teodorica appears to be a woman of little personal
force, easily subject to inluence, and upon all the important matters of business was accustomed to
seek, and was given, the advice of father Sanz and other members of his order. He was fully aware of
the existence of the contract of 1902 as well as of the later important developments connected with the
history of that contract and the contract substituted successively for it. When the Torrens certiicate was
inally issued in 1909, Endencia delivered it for safekeeping to the defendant corporation where it
remained in the custody and under the control of P. Juan Labarga. What is more, Father Sanz entered
into an arrangement with Endencia whereby large numbers of cattle belonging to the defendant
corporation were to be pastured upon said land during a period extending from June 1, 1909, to May 1,
1914. Plaintif Daywalt sued defendant La Corporacion, in part, for damages for wrongful interference in
the performance of the contract.

ISSUE Whether the act of defendant La Corporacion in advising Endencia to abstain from carrying on
with the contract constituted a tort.

HOLDING NO. Article 1902 of the Civil Code declares that any person who by an act or omission,
characterized by fault or negligence, causes damage to another shall be liable for the damage so done.
Ignoring so much of this article as relates to liability for negligence, we take the rule to be that a person
is liable for damage done to another by any culpable act; and by "culpable act" we mean any act which is
blameworthy when judged by accepted legal standards. The idea thus expressed is undoubtedly broad
enough to include any rational conception of liability for the tortious acts likely to be developed in any
society. The fact that the oicials of defendant La Corporacion may have advised Endencia not to carry
the contract into efect would not constitute actionable interference with such contract. It may be added
that when one considers the hardship that the ultimate performance of that contract entailed on the
vendor, and the doubt in which the issue was involved — to the extent that the decision of the Court of
the First Instance was unfavorable to the plaintif and the Supreme Court itself was divided — the
attitude of the defendant corporation, is not diicult to understand. To our mind a fair conclusion on this
feature of the case is that father Juan Labarga and his associates believed in good faith that the contract
could not be enforced and that Teodorica would be wronged if it should be carried into efect. Any
advice or assistance which they may have given was, therefore, prompted by no mean or improper
motive. It is not, in our opinion, to be denied that Teodorica would have surrendered the documents of
title and given possession of the land but for the inluence and promptings of members of the
defendants corporation. But we do not credit the idea that they were in any degree inluenced to the
giving of such advice by the desire to secure to themselves the paltry privilege of grazing their cattle
upon the land in question to the prejudice of the just rights of the plaintif.