5586 OFFICIAL GAZETTE Vou. 45, No. 12 the land within the said period, and to contend that the sale by his brother may be given effect because he had let the vendee to believe that the seller had tite thereto, is to advocate for what would amount to an evasion or indirect infringment of the probibition ‘As to the question of prescription, we aote that while defendant's answer sets forth as & basis for aaid defense alleged adverse possession ty himself and his predecessors in interest for the statutory period, in his appeal he rev- | ies his position by declaring in his brief that he does not slaim title by prescription. Having become aware that registered land ean not be acquired by prescription (sec- | tion 48, Aet No. 496), he now takes the position that the present case should, in effect, be taken as an action “to eclare null and void Exhibit 1, the deed of sale covering ‘the land in question,” an action which, according to section 43 (1) of Aet No. 190, prescribes in ten years. Not only is this particular prescription not specifically pleaded in the answer, but defendant seems to overlook that a sale in | Violation of section 35 of Act No. 926, as amended, is void 4b initio and not merely voidable in the sease that it be comes a nullity only from the time it is so declared by the courts. As the deed was void from the very begin: ning, plaintiff does not have to institute an action for the purpose of having it declared void. Wherefore, the judgment appealed from ix affirmed, with coats against the appellant. Gutierrez David and De In Roso, JJ.. concur. Indgment affirmed. (No. 101T-R, May 31, 1948) Diag & Co, INC., plaintiff and appellee, vs. VicEN') Maxscep and Sixt ZaNvuETa, defendants and appel- lants; Lim BEN and Sv Pua, defendants and sppelices 1 Ermence; Werwess; Exeer Wrrxiaa; Coureraney; Scirvairic ‘SrUbY AND THAIKING Noz ALWATSESSDKTIAL QUALIICATION (or Exruxr Wrrezss—Although a witness, in order to be om petent as an expert, must show himself to be aed or expe- enced in the basinces or profession to which the subject lates, there is no precise requirement as to the made in ‘whieh abl or experience shall have been acgired, Scientific sindy and training are not always eatntil tthe competency fof a witness an an expert. witness muy be competent Uo leatity ase» expert slthouzh hin Rnowhtge was acyvired ‘through mediom of practical experienee rather than scientie study and receareh. Generally speaking, any person. who by stedy or experience Ine acquired partial” knowiedige or ‘experience may be slowed to give im evidence his opinion ‘upon matters of technical lnowidge and all relating Yo suc, Dasiness or employsent. Even where the prilem prescnied 1 one which ordinarily requires same scienike Knowle or taining, one Jong experienced may testy as an expert,Drcrwpen, 1949 OFFICIAL GAZETTE howeh he haw porgved no special study of the matter Knowledge acquired by doing la ro leas valaable than Seyuleed by mtd). (20 Am. Jur 784) omase ano Sauryvieron Wanasty Acatwier, BvicTON: Tones oF THE VENDLE--Under the. Civil Gade, the. vendor ie hound te deliver and warrant the thing wold (art. 1461) snd by tie obligation he in snaweruble to Ue purebaser for {ke egal and Peaesful poasesion (art. 1474), and Sf, by final Tudgment and by vive of 4 taht previous othe purchane ihe vendee is deprived of the thing Dought, he vende shall have the night (att. 1478) to demand of the vendor: (1) lie veatiution ofthe price which the thing wold had at the Ue of the eviction, whether it be greater or leas than tine of the ane; (2) ‘The fruit or income, if he haw been ‘adjudged to. deliver them to the party who, won, the aut “oatitated again hin {3) The costs of the auit which ensned the evetony andy na prope, cae, thoue of the sult brovght Againat the’ vendor forthe warranty: (4). The, expenses of the contract It the vendee haw paid then; (6) ‘The damages nd interesta and the voluntary of recreate of ornamental fxpenaee, if the ale an mae in bad falth s.tng To, In. Nowicr 10" Vewtoon Nor NScrssary 1” Cast ‘nan -—In am action for evletion where L. By the vendo ‘ten made n party to the action, not only by tha complaint of the plain, but also by the erosteomplaint fled. againat hina bythe vendse V.AI, who praye in onl eroneomplaint ‘ak im the event he be deprived of the ewnerthip of the truck, 'B, be ordered to pay hur the selling price thereof together ges and cute, he. was, thos. sufiently Informed ty elem "againat hin and. Ais obligation to Gnfond wendee's tle, Inthe circumstance, notee. Ia. the resiae form preteribed in artile 1481 of the Civil Code ‘could be euperfaous, Iaving appeared in the ease and taken fart inthe defense, vendor cannot now be beard to sa? ist the abeence ofthis formal notice has prejodleed” him soto ia Tog. Witty Wamuney Acuner Evierow MAY ae Ex: Yonceo; PIWaLiny op ZuocMBNT DEPWING. VENDEE.OF THING Sou nor Neceaaany.—In accordance with the dedison of the Supreme Court of Spain of Apuil 27, 1906, Manresa in his comments on articles 1481 and 1482 of the Civil Code, ‘eine to be inclined 10 the opinion that the vendeo, after otis to the vendor, may ask in the sane aetion that in ise the eviction ie realized the ssid. vendor be held lable fo bin on the warrancy agaleat eviction. (10° Manresa, 4th fa, p. 201; 219; Tolentino, Commenter and. Jurlepradence ‘on the Clll Code, Vol. 2, pp. 878-819; Moran, Rules of Court, Bnd ed Vol 1, Pe 205.) APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Firat Instance of Laguna, Yateo, J. ‘The facts are stated in the opinion of the court Eduardo P. Caguioa for appellant. Jesus Paredes for appellees Lim Ben aud Sy Pua. Antonio M. Moncada and Alfonso Farcon for appellee Dilag & Co, Tne. Reves, A. J. Plaintifl corporation was the owner of an Internations! truck, model 1988, motor No, HD-232-22286, which it had SC eyIDENC 5687OFFICIAL GAZETTE Vole 45, No. 12 = - purchased from the International Harvester Company in rarenPaA00. ‘The truck vas entrusted to Pablo Dilag, Meetary-reagurer of the corporation, who was using it eSmmection with its business. On tre night of Decer rec anToNs, the truck svas stolen while it was parked pe" oper Seana Stree, in the City of San Pablo, Laguna That was during the Japanese occupation, After the Teration, Dilag saw the truck parked in front of the ity Lunch ia the City of San Pable on September 2, 1945, and, recognizing itas that of his company, he had it seized by the police and had a complain for theft pre ented againat its then possessor Vicente Merced and so Seainst Lim Ben, Sy Pun and Sixto Zandueta, The cr atinal complaint having been subsequently dismissed, the Tlaintit company, on October 2, 1945, fed the present ction againat tne same partics Tor the recovery of the truck in question and for damages, and obtained an ort at seizure upon the fling of the corresponding bond But the defendant Vicente Merced, to. whom the truck was felurued after the dismissal of the criminal complaint, ied a couaterbond and was able to retain possession The defendant Vicente Iferced clas tile to the truck vy purchase from Lin Ben, and in his erase-complaint yainal the latter prays that in the event he is deprived SP the ownership ‘tthe track this crosedefendant de ‘lajudged to return to him the purchase price together ‘ath damages. ‘On their part, the defendants Sy Pua nd Lim Ben claim to have bought the truck in. good faith from their codefendant, Sikto Zandueta, the title thereto being later consolidated in Lim Ben when Sy Pra's, interest was assigned to bim. Tae defendant Zandueta Gia ot appear to answer the complain: and was therefore declared in dealt ‘After trial the lover court rendered judgment, decar- ing plaintiff the owner of the truck in question, aboolving. defendant Lim Ben ana Sy Paa from lability for damages 45 purchasers in good faith, and anering defendants Sixto Zandueta and Vicente Meroed, jintly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of 5,000 at damages and the costs of the suit. From this judgment, Vieente Merced has appealed. It isnot disputed that the truck in question was real Barchased by pelt on August 25 1945, frm in Bea who together with Sy Pus hal in turn purchased Sixto Zandueta on April 11, 1945. If Zandueta had good tile to this cane he ‘thrown ij icle he cenld probably have Tight on that question. But he did not come to court to defend the title; and though cogni suldress, = cognizant of his ‘did not choose to cite him as a wi Seat ceeaasa itmess. the certiteae of reat ange his certified cony registration (Exhibit 1), purporting gDovempen, 1949 OFFICIAL GAZETTE 5589 to have been iasea by the Divestor of Publ Works on Wane G84 favor of Zanduets for an International iis etn motor No, HD-202-22168, sad to have een Acquired from one Marcelino de Leon Pivitivan the other hand, voved that he, ator sumer Othe dlpoted tek has bee tampered i tha aaeeee per neve abuearing on ite motor (HD-282-22168) atthe criginale Ts witness Pablo Dilng could not ‘yor certain what he original umber, wasy but iis Sigaiteant thatthe faye five Aigures (HD-252-22. «+ Colne. ith the fest five figures of the motor number (t1D-252129965) of planus trvek._In adation, plain Li presented root an ertain features of is stolen truck “chin gre to Be-found on the ene no in dispute and hae poouble its Kentfeation by Pabio Dilag, ‘The more Taigatant af those distingursing fentures are (2) the iincral appearance of the tick, (2) He paint of the ond (3) the wonden running bosed on the Fett side, (4) {he two. isom bare supporting. the glass Windshield» (5) the wed te rode (8) the welded propeller shaft, (1), the hale fnch serew en the cylinder head, and (8) the hole inthe radiator eaused by a bio from the fan elt With yattlcuar reference to featares (8), (8), (8) ana (o), Pablo Ditag tested thot while the trek Was in his, {2Xettom hati, before it ay stolen fn December, 1944, Ne ert running boerd was broken and te had to replace ‘tith a wooden one; that asthe framework of the pass ‘Cindshitd wan about to be broken, he nad it reinforced