EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP. v.

SANTOS (1990)
Facts:
A person dentfyng hmsef as Prof. |ose Cruz paced an order by
teephone wth EDCA for 406 books, payabe on devery. EDCA
prepared the correspondng nvoce and devered the books as
ordered for whch Cruz ssued a persona check of P8,995.65.
Cruz sod 120 of the books to Leonor Santos who pad hm P1,700 after
verfyng the seers ownershp from the nvoce he showed.
EDCA became suspcous over a second order paced by Cruz even
before cearng hs frst check. So EDCA made nqures wth the DLSU
Coege of whch he camed to be a dean but was nformed that there
was no such person n ther empoy. Cruz aso had no more account
wth Phppne Amanah Bank aganst whch he had drawn the payment
check.
EDCA then went to the poce to set up a trap and arrested Cruz whose
rea name was Tomas dea Pena.
EDCA sought the assstance of the poce whch forced ther way nto
the store of Santos and threatened her wth prosecuton for buyng
stoen property. They sezed the 120 books wthout warrant and oaded
them nto EDCAs van.
Santos sued for recovery of the books. A wrt of premnary
attachment was ssued and EDCA fnay surrendered the books back to
Santos. The ower courts were n favor of Santos.
Issue(s)/Hed:
WHETHER EDCA was unawfuy deprved of movabe property (books) n the
hands of another because the check ssued by Cruz n payment was
dshonored appyng Art. 559. - NO.
Rato
Art. 559
The possesson of movabe property acqured n good fath s
equvaent to a tte.
Nevertheess, one who has ost any movabe or has been unawfuy
deprved thereof, may recover t from the person n possesson of the
same.
If the possessor of a movabe ost or of whch the owner has been
unawfuy deprved has acqured t n good fath at a pubc sae, the
owner cannot obtan ts return wthout rembursng the prce pad
therefor.
EDCA contends that Santos was not abe to estabsh ownershp of the
dsputed books because they have not even produced a recept to
prove that they bought t.
But the frst sentence of Art. 559 provdes that the possesson of
movabe property acqured n good fath s equvaent to a tte, thus
dspensng wth further proof.
Santos s a buyer n good fath because she frst ascertaned the
ownershp of the books from the EDCA nvoce showng that they have
been sod to Cruz. Santos s n the busness of buyng and seng
goods. To Santos, Cruz was ony one of the many seers she was
accustomed to deang wth.
Santos frst ascertaned that the books beonged to Cruz before buyng
them. By contrast, EDCA was ess than cautous n deang wth Cruz.
Athough t had never transacted wth Cruz before, t ready devered
the books he ordered by teephone and ready accepted hs persona
check as payment. It dd not verfy hs dentty. It dd not wat to cear
Cruzs check.
Worse, t ndcated n the saes nvoce that the books had been pad
for on devery thereby vestng ownershp n Cruz.
EDCA argues that Cruz acqured no tte to the books because hs
check was dshonored thus coud not have vady transferred the
books to Santos. But a contract of sae s consensua and perfected
once an agreement s reached between the partes on the sub|ect
matter and consderaton.
Ownershp n the thng sod sha not pass to the buyer unt fu
payment of the purchase prce ONLY f there s a stpuaton to that
effect. Otherwse, the genera rue s that ownershp sha pass from
the vendor to the vendee upon the actua or constructve devery of
the thng sod EVEN f the purchase prce has not been pad. In ths
case, there was no stpuaton so the genera rue appes.
Non-payment ony creates a rght to (1) demand payment, (2) rescnd
the contract and (3) have a cause of acton for crmna prosecuton for
bouncng checks.
Actua devery of the books havng been made, Cruz acqured
ownershp over the books whch he coud vady transfer to Santos.
The fact that he had not yet pad for them was a matter between Cruz
and EDCA and dd not mpar the tte acqured by Santos over the
books.
There is no unlawful deprivation if the seller voluntarily parted
with it pursuant to a contract of sale. The fact that price was
not subsequently paid did not render illegal a transaction
which was valid and legal at the beginning.