Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Week 9 Digests
Week 9 Digests
Vda. de Borromeo vs Pogoy (1983) The motion should still be dismissed because P.D. 1508
applies only when the parties are individual, or natural
Petition: Petition for Review of the Decision of the Court persons. Reyes, in representing the estate of Vito Borromeo
Petitioner: PETRA VDA. DE BORROMEO was in fact representing a juridical person and as such, P.D.
Respondent: HON. JULIAN B. POGOY, Municipality/City Trial Court of 1508 does not apply
Cebu City, and ATTY. RICARDO REYES
Ponencia: Escolin, J.
DISPOSITION: Petition denied. The decision of the RTC is affirmed.
DOCTRINE:
a. The prescription period of unlawful detainer is one year
b. P.D. 1508 requires parties to be individual persons, or in other
words, natural persons. An estate if a diseased person is a
juridical person and as such, P.D. 1508 cannot apply in the
present case.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
a) W/N the case should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction
RULING + RATIO:
a) No.
Although Respondent’s claim is without basis, the motion to
dismiss should nevertheless be denied. Respondent in this
case filed the action for unlawful detainer within one month
of the demand. P.D. 1508 requires that cases filed with the
Barangay Court must be concluded within 60 days. As such,
Respondent would have a whole 9 months to file with the
RTC.
Digest Author: Ann Catherine Co RULING + RATIO:
WILMON AUTO SUPPLY v COURT OF APPEALS No. An ejectment suit cannot be suspended by an action filed in the RTC
based on tenant’s claim that his right of pre-emption was violated
(1992) • The action in the RTC did not involve physical or de facto possession
Petitioner: Wilmon Auto Supply Corp.; Iloilo Multi Parts Supply Corp., Virgilio and the case in the RTC was merely a ploy to delay disposition of the
Ang, Southern Sales Corp.; Chang Liang, Jr. ejectment proceedings, or that the issue presented in the former
Respondent: Court of Appeals; Star Group Resources And Development, could quite as easily be set up as defense in the ejectment action
Inc and there resolved.
Ponencia: Narvasa, C.J. • Cases wherein ownership is the issue does not bar or suspend
ejectment cases which tackle possession de facto
DOCTRINE: Cases wherein ownership is the issue does not bar or suspend
ejectment cases which tackle possession de facto DISPOSITION: Decision AFFIRMED
FACTS:
1. Petitioners were lessees of a commercial building and bodegas
standing on registered land in Iloilo City owned in common by Lucy
A. Solinap, Fr. Jerry R. Locsin, Lourdes C. Locsin, Manuel C. Locsin
and Ester L. Jarantilla.
2. The lease contract among others contained a "reservation of rights"
clause stating that LESSOR reserves the rights to sell, mortgage,
hypothecate or encumber the property so long as it requires the
purchase(r) or mortgage creditors to respect the terms of this lease
contract; provided further that LESSEE shall be duly informed about
LESSOR's plan to sell the property.
3. After the expiration of the period fixed in the lease agreements, the
lessors executed a public instrument entitled "Deed of Absolute
Sale," to Star Group Resources and Development Inc.
4. On November 22, 1989, the buyer, Star Group, brought separate
actions of unlawful detainer in the Municipal Trial Court In Cities of
Iloilo City against the lessees
5. The lessees refused to concede, and indeed impugned, Star Group's
right to eject them.
6. They argued that in so selling the properties and seeking their
ejectment therefrom, the lessors — and their buyer — had violated
their leasehold rights because (i) they (the lessees) were not
accorded the right of preemption, (b) the buyer was not required to
honor the leases, and (c) the lessees were denied the option to
renew their leases upon the expiration thereof.
7. The same propositions were also set out as causes of action in a
complaint filed in the RTC.
ISSUES: W/N an action for unlawful detainer filed in the MTC be suspended
by an action filed in RTC on the claim that he is entitled to right of preemption
Author: Marti
Semira vs. Court of Appeals(1994) of 2,200 sq. m. from the 822.5 sq. m. belonged to him. An claimed that
since An only sold 822.5 sq. m. to his nephew, then Cipriano could not
Petition: Petition for review have sold the rest of the 2,200 sq. m. to Semira.
Petitioner: Miguel Semira
Respondent: Court of Appeals and Buenaventura An 7. The MTC, after denying the petition at first for lack of jurisdiction since
Ponente: Bellosillo the case involved the question of ownership, which used to be the
original jurisdiction of the RTC (BP Blg. 129 gave MTC the power to
decide on the ownership of the land ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF
DOCTRINE: (Scope and Limit of Forcible Entry) DETERMINING PRIOR POSSESSION), ruled that Semira is the rightful
Ultimately, a suit charging forcible entry is only a provisional remedy provided owner and possessor of such land and therefore cannot be ejected
for by law to prevent further deprivation of property where such deprivation therefrom.
happens. Therefore, though a court may rule upon the question of ownership
to determine prior possession in a case of forcible entry, such is not 8. RTC ruled otherwise by saying that since An has been in possession of
conclusive and the aggrieved party may file for an action to determine who the land since 1964 and possession was disputed by Semira only on
the rightful owner of a property is. 1979, An therefore had prior possession. CA affirmed this ruling.
FACTS:
1. Juana Gutierrez was the owner of Lot 4221. She sold the land to ISSUES:
Buenaventura An in a “Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa” for a lump sum of
P850. 1. WoN forcible entry case will prosper.
a. WoN Semira is the owner of the whole 2,200 sq. m.
2. 4221 was indicated in the deed of sale as measuring approximately i. WoN the whole lot was validly sold to him.
822.5 square meters and boundaries were indicated. Without regard for
the size of the land, what Buenaventura An followed were the
boundaries. PROVISION:
• Art. 1542. Civil Code. In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum
3. Subsequently, Buenaventura An, bought from Pascual Hornilla, the son and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number,
of Juana Gutierrez, the land to the right of Lot 4221. This lot (Lot 4215 there shall be no increase or decrease of the price although there be
with area of 8,606 square meters) is the boundary of 4221 on the east. greater or less area or number than that stated in a contract.
Buenaventura also bought another land from Santiago Asi (11k sq. m.).
The same rule shall be applied when two or more immovable are sold
4. Buenaventura sold Lot 4221 to his nephew, Cipriano Ramirez, for a lump for a single price; but if, besides mentioning the boundaries, which is
sum of P2,500. It maintained the description it had in the previous deed indispensable in every conveyance of real estate, its area or number
of sale of approx.822.5 sq. m. with similar boundaries except that instead should be designated in the contract, the vendor shall be bound to
of Juana Gutierrez on the east, it was now bounded by his uncle, deliver all that is included within said boundaries, even when it exceeds
Buenaventura An. the area or number specified in the contract; and, should he not be able
to do so, he shall suffer a reduction in the price, in proportion to what is
5. Cipriano sold the land to Miguel Semira for 20,000, although the area of lacking in the area or number, unless the contract is rescinded because
the land in the “Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa” was 2,200 sq. m., still with vendee does not accede to the failure to deliver what has been
the same boundaries. This change in the area indicated was due to the stipulated.
cadastral survey in 1974.
6. On March 17, 1979, Semira entered the premises and began to construct RULING + RATIO: (From the controlling sub-issue to the main one)
a rice-mill. However on April 18, 1979, a complaint for forcible entry was
filed against him by Buenaventura An, since An believed that the excess
Author: Marti
1&2. Yes, the whole of Lot 4211 was sold to Cipriano and therefore
was validly transferred to Semira through a subsequent sale.
a. See Art. 1542 above.
DOCTRINE: Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in b. He tried to register the sale but due to some technicalities it
two different personalities except in the case of co-possession. Should a could not be registered.
question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor shall
be preferred. If there are two possessions, the longer in possession if the 4. Wong then placed laborers on the land and built a small farm house
dates of possession are the same, the one who presents a title, If these and placed signboards.
conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending
determination of its possession or ownership through the proper a. This was when Mercado visited the land to make copra and
proceedings. the matter was brought to court.
1. On 1972 a deed of sale with right to repurchase was executed 6. CFI: Ruled in favor of Mercado
between Manuel Mercado and William Giger over lot 3 for the price
of 3,500 peseos.
ISSUE:
a. In 1973, William Giger again asked an additional amount of
2,500 from Manuel Mercado and so Mercado required Giger Whether or not Wong is an intruder for purposes of a forcible entry.
to sign a new deed of Pacto de Retro sale.
2. In 1972, Manuel Mercado began harvesting coconut fruits and he RULING + RATIO: Yes
paid the taxes on the lands for Mr. Giger. His use of the land had the
following characteristics: a. Definition of Possession: Possession is acquired by the
material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by
a. He only periodically went to the land to make copra the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the
proper acts and legal formalities for acquiring such right; and
b. He did not place any person on the land to watch it that the execution of a sale thru a public instrument shall be
equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless there is
c. He did not reside on the land as he was a stipulation to the contrary. However, if the purchaser cannot
businessman/storekeeper have the enjoyment and material tenancy of the thing and
make use of it herself, because such tenancy and enjoyment
d. He did not put any sign or hut to show that he is in actual are opposed by another, then delivery has not been effected.
possession
b. It is clear that possession passed from William Giger to
e. He was aware that defendants’ laborers were on the land as Manuel Mercado by virtue of the first sale. The second sale
early as August 1976 and that they have a hut there but did to Wong failed to pass the possession of the land because
nothing to stop them. there is an impediment – the possession exercised by
Mercado.
i. He was in fact “happy that there were people and a
hut on the land.”
i. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the
same time in two different personalities except in the
case of co-possession.
ii. Should a question arise regarding the fact of
possession, the present possessor shall be
preferred.
The notice giving the lessee the alternative either to pay the increased rental
or otherwise vacate the land is not the demand contemplated by the Rules of
Court in unlawful detainer cases. When after such notice, the lessee elects to
stay, he thereby merely assumes the new rental and cannot be ejected until
he defaults in said obligation and necessary demand is first made.
The facts of this case do not warrant a departure from said settled doctrine. It
should be noted that even if the private respondent was depositing rentals in
trust for the petitioners, what was being deposited were rentals at the old
rate, which petitioners were not bound to accept or withdraw. When private
respondent elected to remain in the premises after petitioners had sent him
the letter of 18 January 1990 giving him the option to vacate by 28 February
1990 or to sign a new lease contract for 1 year at an increased rental rate of
P2,500.00 (later reduced to P2,000.00) a month, he assumed the new rental
rate and could be ejected from the premises only upon default and by a
proper demand from the petitioners. The demand was made on 10 August
1992, followed by the action for unlawful detainer on 25 September 1992.
Hence it was filed within 1 year from the beginning of the unlawful
possession.
ISSUES:
WON MTC has jurisdiction
WON MTC can award damages by way of counterclaim
Digest Author: Czar Paguio 6. MCTC held that laches had already set in which prevented
petitioners from questioning the validity of the purported sale. The
RTC reversed the judgment and ruled that respondent's occupation
Sps. Esmaquel vs Coprada (2010) was by virtue of petitioners' tolerance and permission. Hence,
Petitioner: SPOUSES MARCOS R. ESMAQUEL and VICTORIA respondent is bound by an implied promise that she will vacate the
SORDEVILLA property upon demand. Thus, her possession over the subject
Respondent: MARIA COPRADA property became unlawful after the petitioners demanded her to
Ponencia: Peralta, J. vacate the property. CA reversed the decision; hence, this petition.
DOCTRINE: Article 546 which allows full reimbursement of useful ISSUES: W/N petitioners have a valid ground to evict respondent from the
improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, subject property
apply only to a possessor in good faith, one who builds on land with the belief
that he is the owner thereof. Verily, persons whose occupation of is by sheer PROVISION: Art. 546
tolerance of its owners are not possessors in good faith.
RULING + RATIO: YES. Respondent's occupation of the subject property
FACTS: was by mere tolerance, she has no right to retain its possession under
1. Spouses Marcos Esmaquel and Victoria Sordevilla filed an ejectment Article 448 of the Civil Code. She is aware that her tolerated possession
case against respondent Maria V. Coprada, claiming that they are may be terminated any time and she cannot be considered as builder in good
the registered owners of a 253 sqm parcel of land in Laguna, faith. Both Article 448 and Article 546 , which allow full reimbursement of
covered by a TCT. useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is
made, apply only to a possessor in good faith., one who builds on land with
2. Sps: In 1945, Coprada was able to persuade the spouses to allow the belief that he is the owner thereof. Verily, persons whose occupation of a
her and her family to occupy and construct a residential house (nipa realty is by sheer tolerance of its owners are not possessors in good faith. At
hut) on the land, under the condition that they will vacate the the time respondent built the improvements on the premises in 1945, she
premises should sps need to use the same. knew that her possession was by mere permission and tolerance of the
petitioners; hence, she cannot be said to be a person who builds on land with
3. Sps made no attempt to drive them away out of pity, since Coprada the belief that she is the owner thereof.
and her eight children had no other place to live in. They occupied
the premises free of rent and payment of realty taxes. DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
4. However, when Coprada’s financial circumstances improved
(children are already working and she has acquired her own
residential house), spouses demanded that she vacate the land in
1996. Coprada ignored the demands.
5. Coprada’s defense: Sps sold the lot to her for P2,000, which she
had fully paid. She has also been paying the realty taxes of the lot
and was able to build a semi-concrete house on the land. She also
claimed that the sps’ claim is barred by laches. Even granting,
without admitting, that her claim of ownership is improper because
sps are the registered owners thereof, she argued that she is a
builder in good faith, and thus entitled to be reimbursed the
necessary and useful expenses under Articles 546 and 548 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines. Without such reimbursement,
she has the right of retention over the property and she cannot
just be ejected from the premises.
Other shit na relevant but hindi kelangan sabihin:
First, there is no evidence of the sale. As against the unproven claim of an oral sale,
the Torrens title of the Sps. must prevail. Petitioners' title over the subject property is
evidence of their ownership and such certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein. The person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to
possession thereof.
Third, laches isn’t applicable here. As the registered owners, petitioners' right to eject
any person illegally occupying their property is not barred by laches. This right is
imprescriptible and can never be barred by laches.
Digest Author: Billy Alcid cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of
Azarcon and Adobo v. Eusebio (1991) the possession.
Petitioner/s: Leonardo Azarcon, Manuel Azarcon and Esteban Adobo
Respondent: Victor Eusebio RULING + RATIO:
Ponencia: Labrador, J. 1. Yes
• Under the law a person who is in possession and who is being
DOCTRINE: Under the law a person who is in possession and who is being ordered to leave a parcel of land while products thereon are pending
ordered to leave a parcel of land while products thereon are pending harvest, harvest, has the right to a part of the net harvest, as expressly
has the right to a part of the net harvest, as expressly provided by Article 545 provided by Article 545 of the Civil Code.
of the Civil Code. • As the order of execution did not expressly prohibit the defendants-
appellants from gathering the pending fruits, which fruits were the
FACTS: result of their possession and cultivation of the land, it cannot be said
1. Victor Eusebio had filed a lease application, for a parcel of land that the defendants-appellants committed an act which is clear
containing an area of about 349 hectares. violation of the courts' order.
2. A portion thereof was occupied by petitioners herein, Leonardo L. • A person who has been ordered to leave certain premises is
Azarcon and his companions, under a homestead application. ordinarily not prohibited from taking with him his own effects and
3. Before the dispute could be settled, Eusebio filed a complaint in the possession, unless there is an express prohibition to this effect. No
Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija praying that the petitioners such, prohibition was contained in the order for the defendants to
Azarcon be ordered to vacate the said portion of land and pay leave the land.
damages. The lower court eventually declared the petitioners in
default ordering them to vacate the land. The petitioners appealed to DISPOSITION: The finding of the CA regarding contempt of court is set
the CA. aside, and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge against them.
4. Pending the appeal, a writ of execution of the judgment of the
lower court was issued.
5. In order to stay the writ of execution, the petitioners deposited a
supersedeas bond of Php 1,000 (November 1955) hence the lower
court suspended the execution. However the certificate showing that
the petitioners deposited such bond was issued late (December
1955) and the Court of Appeals was not notified of such. Therefore
the Court of Appeals had the belief that the petitioners did not post
such bond which is why such court denied the staying of the
execution.
6. In spite of the receipt by the petitioners of the notice of the writ
of execution commanding them to remove from the land and
that the respondent have restitution of the same, the former
nevertheless entered the land to gather palay which was then
pending harvest. Such rice was planted by the petitioners.
7. Hence the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision finding the
parties guilty of contempt of court.
ISSUES:
1. WON the gathering of palay by the petitioners was proper.
PROVISION
Art. 545. If at the time the good faith ceases, there should be any natural or
industrial fruits, the possessor shall have a right to a part of the expenses of
Digest Author: Bugsy Mangaser a homesteader except that it be made within 5 years from date of
conveyance.
CALAGAN v. CFI of DAVAO (1980) • The Court then resorted to Article 1616 which provides that the
vendor a retro cannot avail himself of the right of repurchase without
Petitioner: Mangulon Calagan, Fernando, Calagan, Asuncion Calagan, Mirasol returning to the vendee the price of the sale, the expenses of the
Calagan, Arsenia Calagan, Paula Calagan, Cristituto Calagan, Candelaria Calagan contract and other legitimate payments, and the necessary and
and Crispina Calagan useful expenses made on the thing sold.
Respondent: Hon. Court of First Instance of Davao (Brand II) and Petra Sandoval o The house which PETRA constructed is useful expense (that
Ponencia: Panganiban, J.
which increases the value or augments the income of the
party, as contrary to a necessary expense which is incurred
DOCTRINE:
for the preservation of the thing)
A homesteader who exercises his right to repurchase within 5 years from
• However, Article 1616 should be construed in conjunction with Article
conveyance of the homestead should do so in accordance with Article 1616.
546 and 547 of the Civil Code prescribing the rules on refund of
However, if he chooses not to pay the useful improvements, as the contrary
necessary and useful expense inasmuch as a vendee a retro is
would grant the vendee the right of retention over the property (Article 546),
considered in good faith.
the vendee may resort to remedies afforded by Article 547 which is to
o An option available to the homesteader to is to pay for the
remove the useful improvements, provided no substantial damage or injury is
useful improvements with right of retention. However, to
made.
allow the vendee of a homestead the right of retention until
full payment would render nugatory the right of repurchase
FACTS:
granted by law to homesteader. All a vendee would do to
1. MANGULON Calagan and wife, TAKURA, were granted a
prevent repurchase is to build something on the homestead
Homestead Patent over a 5.2905 hectare-land in Dawis, Digos,
BEYOND the capacity of the homesteader to pay.
Davao
o Therefore, most viable option is for the homesteader to
2. TAKURA died a year after and was survived by her husband and
require the vendee a retro to remove the useful
children
improvements. It being obvious that CALAGANS are not
3. 1961: MANGULON and daughter, PAULA, sold a portion of their
exercising the option to refund, vendee may remove her
homestead (9,230 square meters) to PETRA Sandoval for P2,340.
house since this can be done without damaging the principal
The latter borrowed the title of the land to have the sale annotated
thing.
thereon
4. 1963: MANGULON offered to repurchase the portion sold to PETRA,
DISPOSITION: Judgment appealed from is MODIFIED. (Portion ordering
but she refused. The CALAGANS (petitioners) made subsequent
CALAGANS to pay value of the house is eliminated. PETRA is given the right
offers but PETRA was adamant. She later on maintained that she
to remove her house without damage to the land.)
was willing to comply provided she was reimbursed the value of the
house that she constructed on the subject of the land.
5. The trial Court ruled for the CALAGANS, however ordered them to
return the P 2,340 and pay P 3,000 for the value of the house
constructed thereon.
ISSUES:
• WoN the CALAGANS may be ordered to pay the value of the house
PROVISION: Public Land Act, Article 1616, 546 and 547 (Civil Code)
RULING + RATIO:
No.
• There is no provision in the PUBLIC LAND ACT which provides for
the terms and conditions under which repurchase may be effected by
Digest Author: George Filasol PROVISION: Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in
Cruz v. Pahati (1956) good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any
Petitioner/s: Jose R. Cruz movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the
Respondent/s: Reynaldo Pahati, et.al person in possession of the same.
Ponencia: Bautista Angelo, J. If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been
unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner
DOCTRINE: A person illegally deprived of any movable may recover it from cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefore.
the person in possession of the same and the only defense the latter may
have is if he has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, in which case the
owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid for. RULING + RATIO:
1. Cruz has the better right of possession
FACTS: • Both (Cruz and Bulahan) were found by the lower court to be
1. The automobile in question was originally owned by Northern Motors, innocent and to have acted in good faith
Inc. which later sold it to a Chinaman. • BUT Cruz has a better right to the car in question than Bulahan
a. The Chinaman sold it to Belizo (dealer in 2nd hand cars) for it cannot be disputed that Cruz had been illegally deprived
b. Belizo later on sold it to Cruz thereof because of the ingenious scheme utilized by Belizo to
2. One year thereafter, Belizo offered the plaintiff to sell the automobile enable him to dispose of it as if he were the owner thereof.
for him claiming to have a buyer for it. o Cruz, therefore, can still recover the possession of the
3. At that time, plaintiff’s certificate of registration was missing and, car even if Bulahan had acted in good faith in purchasing
upon the suggestion of Belizo, plaintiff wrote a letter addressed to it from Belizo.
the Motor Section of Public Works fro the issuance of a new o The maxim that “no man can transfer to another a better
registration certificate alleging as reason the loss of the one title than he has himself” obtain in the civil as well as in
previously issued to him and stating that he was intending to sell his common law.
car. • The common law principle that “where one of two innocent
4. But the said letter was falsified and converted into an authorized parties must suffer by a fraud perpetrated by another, the law
deed of sale in favor of Belizo. imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced
5. With this deed of sale, Belizo succeeded in obtaining a certificate of confidence, has enabled the fraud to be committed” cannot be
registration in his name. applied to this case which is covered by an express provision of
6. Subsequently, he sold the car to Bulahan. the New Civil Code.
a. Bulahan then sold it to Pahati.
7. Hence, this action for Replevin instituted by Cruz against Pahati and DISPOSITION: Petition appealed from is reversed. No cost.
Bulahan.
8. Bulahan claims that he acquired the automobile from Belizo for value
and without having any knowledge of any defect in the title of the
latter.
a. He claims that Cruz delivered the possession of the
automobile to Belizo for resale and to facilitate it, Cruz gave
Belizo a letter of authority to secure a new certificate of
registration Cruz’ name.
b. By having clothed Belizo with an apparent ownership or
authority to sell the automobile, plaintiff is now stopped to
deny such ownership or authority.
ISSUES:
1. WON Cruz or Bulahan has the better right to the car
Author: Cham Mercado
AZNAR V. YAPDIANGCO (1965) 10. After some time, Irineo found out that the car and their unidentified
Petitioner: Jose Aznar companion were gone.
Respondent: Rafael Yapdiangco 11. When Irineo went back to Marella’s house, it was closed and Marella
Ponencia: Regala, J. was gone.
a. The matter was reported to his father and the police.
DOCTRINE: If the owner has lost a thing, or if he has been unlawfully 12. On the same day, in the afternoon, Marcella sold the car to petitioner
deprived of it, he has a right to recover it, not only from the finder, thief or Jose Aznar for P15,000.
robber, but also from third persons who may have acquired it in good faith 13. While the car was in Aznar’s possession and while he was attending
from such finder, thief, or robber. to its registration in his name, the agents of Phil. Constabulary,
In these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as against the headed by respondent Yapdiangco, seized the car based on
owner, who may recover it without paying indemnity, except when the Teodoro Santos’ report that said car was unlawfully taken from him.
possessor acquired it in a public sale. 14. Aznar filed a complaint for replevin against Yapdiangco.
15. Lower court rendered a decision awarding the car to intervenor
FACTS: Teodoro Santos.
1. Teodoro Santos advertised in 2 metropolitan newspapers the sale of
his Ford Fairlane 500. ISSUE:
2. A certain L. De Dios went to the Santos residence to answer the ad. Who has the better the right to the possession of the car, Teodoro Santos or
Because Teodoro was out, De Dios talked with the Teodoro’s son, Jose Aznar?
Irineo Santos, and told him that his uncle, Vicente Marella was
interested in buying the car. PROVISION: Art.559, Civil Code
3. The following day, as instructed by his father, Ireneo went to the “The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is
address of Vicente Marella in Sampaloc, Manila. equivalent to title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been
a. At this meeting, Marella agreed to buy the car at P14,700 unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of
provided that the price would be paid only after the car had the same.
been registered in his name. If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been
4. Thereafter, Ireneo, with his father, and De Dios went to the office of a unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner
certain Atty. Padolina to execute the deed of sale for the car. Then, cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.”
they went to the Motor Vehicles Office in Quezon City where the car
was registered in Marella’s name. RULING + RATIO:
5. Teodoro returned to his house, but gave the registration papers and Teodoro Santos has a better right to the car.
copy of the deed of sale to his son, Irineo, and instructed him not to • The rule is that if the owner has lost a thing, or if he has been
part with them until Marella gives full payment for the car. unlawfully deprived of it, he has a right to recover it, not only from the
6. When Irineo went to Marella and demanded payment, Marella said finder, thief or robber, but also from third persons who may have
that he was short by P2000. The latter begged to be allowed to acquired it in good faith from such finder, thief, or robber.
secure the shortage from a sister living in Azcarraga, Manila. o In these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as
7. Marella ordered De Dios and Irineo Santos to go said sister. He also against the owner, who may recover it without paying
requested the registration papers and deed of sale from Irineo indemnity, except when the possessor acquired it in a public
claiming that he would like to show them to his lawyer. Irineo handed sale.
the papers over to Marella and proceeded to the said sister. • In this case, Teodoro had been unlawfully deprived of his car by
8. At a place in Azcarraga, Irineo and De Dios alighted from the car and Marella. Therefore, he can still recover possession of his car even if
entered a house, while their unidentified companion remained in the it is in the possession of a third party who had acquired it in good
car. faith.
9. Once inside, De Dios asked Irineo to wait at the sala, while he went
inside a room. DISPOSITION: Appeal dismissed.
a. That was the last time Irineo saw him.
Author: De Claro, Kimmi
De Garcia v. Court of Appeals
5. Later on when the sheriff tried to serve the writ of seizure
Petition: Replevin (replevin), Consuelo refused to deliver the ring which had been
Petitioners: Consuelo de Garcia and Anastacio Garcia examined by Mr. Rebullida, claiming it was lost.
Respondents: Angelina Guevara and Juan Guevara
Ponente: Fernando, J 6. Consuelo also claims that the ring she bought could be similar
to, but not the same ring Angelina purchased from Mr.
Rebullida which was stolen; that according to a pawn-shop
DOCTRINE: owner, Consuelo’s diamond was found to weigh 2.57 cts.
Article 559 in fact assumes that possessor is not yet the owner. It is 7. It was established that the ring possessed by Consuelo was
only a presumptive title sufficient to serve as a basis for acquisitive the same ring as the one stolen from Angelina.
prescription, that the clause immediately following provides that `one
who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, ISSUE:
may recover it from the person in possession of the same. Whether or not Consuelo’s possession in good faith constitutes title
over the ring.
FACTS: PROVISIONS:
1. October 11, 1953 Angelina Guevara while talking to Consuelo
de Garcia, owner of La Bulakeña restaurant recognized her Article 559 - The possession of movable property acquired in good
ring in the finger of Mrs. Garcia and inquired where she bought faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any
it, which the Consuelo told her that she bought it from her movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from
comadre. the person in possession of the same. If the possessor of a movable
lost of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it
2. Angelina explained that that ring was stolen from her house in in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return
February, 1952. Consuelo handed the ring to Angelina and it without reimbursing the price paid therefor.
fitted the latter’s finger. (lady's diamond ring 18 cts. white gold
mounting, with a 2.05 cts. diamond-solitaire, and four brills
0.10 cts.) RATIO + RULING:
3. Two or three days later, Angelina and her husband Lt. Col. NO. Consuelo’s possession in good faith is not equivalent to
Juan Guevara along with Consuelo de Garcia and her title and did not defeat Angelina’s title over the ring.
attorney, proceeded to the store of Mr. Rebullida to whom they
showed the ring in question. Angelina Guevara, having been unlawfully deprived of the
diamond ring in question, was entitled to recover it from petitioner
4. Mr. Rebullida a examined the ring with the aid of high power Consuelo de Garcia who was found in possession of the same.
lens and concluded that it was the indeed the ring that
Angelina bought from him in 1947. The ring was returned to Article 559 in fact assumes that possessor is not yet the
Consuelo, who failed to return the ring to Angelina despite a owner. The title established by the first clause of Art. 559 is only a
written request. presumptive title sufficient to serve as a basis for acquisitive
prescription, that the clause immediately following provides that `one
Author: De Claro, Kimmi
who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof,
may recover it from the person in possession of the same.
YES!
FACTS: • Suntay can recover the possession of the diamond ring from
a pawnshop where Clarita had pledged it without authority to
1. Plaintiff Suntay is the owner of the diamond ring valued at - do so.
P- 5,000.00. • Article 559 applies and the defense that the pawnshop
2. Plaintiff Suntay and Clarita Sison entered into a transaction acquired possession of the ring without notice of any defect
where Suntay’s ring was delivered to Clarita for sale on in the title of the pledgor is unavailing
commission. Suntay knew Clarita as latter is the close friend • The common law principle that were one of two innocent
of former’s cousin and frequently met each other. persons must suffer by a fraud perpetrated by another, the
3. 3 days after the ring was received by Clarita, said ring was law imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced
pledged by Melia Sison, niece of the husband of Clarita, confidence, has enabled the fraud to be committed, cannot
evidently in connivance with the latter, with petitioner Dizon’s be applied in a case which is covered by an express
pawnshop for -P- 2,600.00. provision of the new Civil Code, specifically Article 559.
4. After the lapse of a considerable time, Suntay demanded the Between a common law principle and a statutory provision,
return of the ring. Clarita delivered to Suntay the pawnshop the latter must prevail in this jurisdiction.
ticket. Thereafter, Suntay filed a case of estafa against • Also, it was mentioned in the case that the owner of movable
Clarita. unlawfully pledged by another is not estopped from
5. Subsequently, Suntay wrote a letter to Dizon for the delivery recovering possession.
of the ring pledged. But the latter refused to return the ring. • Teehankee’s separate concurring opinion:
6. Suntay successfully took possession of her ring through the - “Unlawfully deprived” is used in the general sense, not
remedy of replevin which was granted by the court. used in the specific sense such as “stolen” in the French
Code. It extends to all cases where there has been no
ISSUE: valid transmission of ownership, including depositary or
WON Suntay can recover possession of her ring from Dizon who is lessee.
in good faith - Conviction of embezzler not essential to recovery of
movable by owner from third party.
PROVISION:
• Art. 559 CC DISPOSITION: Decision of CA affirmed. Costs against petitioner.
Digest Author: Alyssa Rodriguez PROVISIONS:
EDCA Publishing v Santos (1990) Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is
Petitioner: EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has
Respondent: THE SPOUSES LEONOR and GERARDO SANTOS, doing been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in
business under the name and style of "SANTOS BOOKSTORE," and THE possession of the same.
COURT OF APPEALS
Ponencia: Cruz, J. If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been unlawfully
deprived has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot
DOCTRINE: The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.
equivalent to a title. This dispenses the need of further proof like sales
invoices. Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee
upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof.
FACTS:
1. A person identifying himself as Professor Jose Cruz placed an order Art. 1478. The parties may stipulate that ownership in the thing shall not pass
by telephone with EDCA (petitioner) for 406 books, payable on to the purchaser until he has fully paid the price.
delivery.
2. EDCA prepared the corresponding invoice and delivered the books RULING + RATIO:
as ordered. Cruz issued a personal check covering the purchase No.
price of P8,995.65. • EDCA assails that the Spouses Santos have not established their
3. Cruz then sold 120 of the books to Gerardo and Leonor Santos of ownership of the disputed books because they have not even
the SANTOS BOOKSTORE (respondents) who, after verifying the produced a receipt to prove they had bought the stock. This is
seller's ownership from the invoice shown, paid Cruz P1,700.00 unacceptable. Precisely, the first sentence of Article 559
4. Then after, Cruz made a second order with EDCA even before the provides that "the possession of movable property acquired in
clearing of his first check. This made EDCA suspicious. good faith is equivalent to a title," thus dispensing with further
5. As such, EDCA made inquiries with the De la Salle College where proof.
Cruz had claimed to be a dean and was informed that there was no
such person in its employ. EDCA also found out that Cruz had no • Moreover, the general rule is that: Ownership shall pass from the
more account or deposit with the Philippine Amanah Bank, the bank vendor to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery of the
against which he had drawn the payment check. thing sold even if the purchase price has not yet been paid.
6. With this, EDCA then went to the police, which set a trap and
arrested Cruz (real name Tomas de la Peña). EDCA then found out • The exception would be that: Ownership in the thing sold shall not
about his sale of 120 of the books to the Spouses Santos. pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase only if there is a
7. That very same night Cruz was arrested, EDCA sought the stipulation to that effect. Absent the stipulation above noted, delivery
assistance of the police and they forced their way into the SANTOS of the thing sold will effectively transfer ownership to the buyer who
BOOKSTORE with prosecution for buying stolen property. They can in turn transfer it to another.
seized the 120 books without warrant, loading them in a van
belonging to EDCA, and thereafter turned them over to the petitioner. • Appyling these to the case at bar, although the title of Cruz was
8. Spouses Santos sued for recovery of the books after demand for presumed under Article 559 by his mere possession of the books,
their return was rejected by EDCA. A writ of preliminary attachment these being movable property, Leonor Santos nevertheless
was issued and EDCA, after initial refusal, finally surrendered the demanded more proof from Cruz by requesting for the EDCA invoice
books to the private respondents. before deciding to buy them. This was extra caution on the Spouses
Santos’ part and it would certainly be unfair now to make them bear
ISSUES: W/N EDCA may seize the books from Santos on the ground that it the prejudice sustained by EDCA, which should have been more
has been unlawfully deprived of the books vigilant in dealing with Cruz.
1. On Sept. 27, 1977, Citiwide sold to a certain Jojo Consuji, two cars (1977 Isuzu Civil Code Art. 1506: Where the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto, but his
Gemini, PhP42.2k, and 1977 Holden Premiere, PhP58.8k), ostensibly on behalf title has not been avoided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a good title to
of his daddy, Rustico T. Consuji. For this, Jojo was to pay with a Phil. Comm. and the goods, provided he buys them in good faith, for value, and without notice of the
Indust. Bank Managers Check for PhP101,000.00. seller’s defect of title.
2. The next day, Citiwide delivered the cars to Jojo, and Jojo turned over the
Manager’s Check (dated Sept. 28) to Citiwide. Civil Code Arts. 1477 and 1478: The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred
3. When Citiwide took the check to PCIB, IT WAS DISHONORED. PCIB found that to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof. // The parties may
the check was tampered with to make the correct amount of “PhP101.00” look stipulate that ownership in the thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he has
like “PhP101,000.00” (material alteration). fully paid the price.
4. Citiwide reported this to the Constabulary, which found that “Jojo” was in fact
Armando Suarez, and this check-altering is his favored modus operandi. HELD/RATIO:
5. The Premiere was later found abandoned in QC. It’s the Gemini that’s the
problem: it’s now in the possession of Jaime Ledesma. Citiwide filed for CITIWIDE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVERY OF THE CAR. The short version is, “It is
EDCA Publishing and Distributing Corp. v. Santos all over again.” The Supreme Court
replevin.
6. Ledesma’s defense: he purchased the vehicle in good faith from its registered even explicitly says so. Long version, though:
owner, Pedro Neyra.
7. In case it’s asked: was Citiwide able to recover the vehicle during the case? YES. 1. As per Art. 1477 and 1478, unless the parties stipulate that ownership does
Had to post double the car’s value as bond. not pass to buyer until full payment of purchase price, then it is the act of
8. CFI-Rizal ruled IN FAVOR OF LEDESMA, awarding the return of the car, plus delivery that transfers ownership to the buyer. Citiwide did not stipulate
damages (PhP35k actual, and PhP10k wrongful issue of writ of seizure) this when it delivered the car to Jojo/Suarez. Therefore, ownership did
validly pass to Jojo/Suarez, due to an unconditional contract of sale, but
voidable due to Suarez’s fraud.
2. Therefore, the CA was wrong when it said that Citiwide was illegally
deprived of the car due to Suarez’s fraud. It was not. Even if it was due to
fraud, ownership was lawfully transferred by delivery, and all fraud can do
is vitiate consent, making the contract voidable—but not void ab initio.
Law on Sales!
3. When Ledesma bought the car from Neyra, that contract of sale with
Jojo/Suarez had not even been declared void yet by a competent court.
Citing the case of Chua Hai v. Hon. Kapunan, the SC noted that Ledesma’s
claim to the Gemini remains valid, and must be respected by the courts.
4. So the CA was also wrong to rule that Citiwide could repossess the vehicle.
Ledesma paid for the vehicle in good faith. The transfers of ownership
down to him remain uncontested in court.
Remember? Sales contract does not transfer ownership (title); it is merely mode. It
is delivery that transfers title. But the importance of sales contracts is that it creates
the obligation to transfer ownership of the reciprocal prestations, which can
therefore be enforced through specific performance.
But could Citiwide have recovered the Gemini, had it first had the sale to Suarez
declared void (rescinded, causing the prestations to be returned)? Consider that
when the car reached either Neyra (unless it’s another of Suarez’ aliases) or
Ledesma, that person became a third party who would be impinged by any legal
development affecting the original sales contract between Citiwide and Jojo.
Plus, of course, one would assume that Citiwide would have to find Suarez first to
pin him down with the rescission case.
Digest Author: Joachim Dompor thing
(CHUA HAI vs KAPUNAN and ONG SHU) • It had yet to be proven that estafa was actually committed
Petitioner: Chua Hai • Civil liability to make restitution under Article 105 arises only when
Respondent: Hon. Ruperto Kapunan (Judge of CFI Manila) and Ong Shu criminal liability is finally declared
Ponencia: JBL Reyes • Last paragraph of Artcile 105 provides that restution cannot be
effected if the thing has been acquired im such a manner that
DOCTRINE: recovery is now barred
A third party in possession of goods purchased in good faith from a person c ο Purchasesmade in a merchant's store/fairs/markets (Article 1505
harged with estafa cannot be divested of possession by the lawful owner whil CC)
e estafa has yet to be proven by a final decision in a criminal case • Even arguing that the purchase was not made in accordance with
Article 1505, failure of a buyer to make goos the price does not
FACTS: revest title in the seller unleas the sale is first rescinded
1. Roberto Soto purchased 700 corrugated galvanized iron sheets and • Assuming also that the sale was obtained through fraud and deceit,
249 round iron bars for P6,137 from Youngstown Hardware, which the contract was made merely voidable
was owned by Ong Shu • Article1506 CC provides that a buyer in good faith wherein the
2. Soto issued a Security Bank check for P7,000 as payment but didn't seller has a voidable title thereto acquires a good title to the thing
inform Ong Shu that he had no sufficient funds. The che k was if the title has not been avoided at the time of sale
subsequently dishonored. • Queations of ownership and possession being civil in nature, they
3. Soto sold 165 sheets in Pangasinan and 535 of them in Mindoro. Of should not be settled by exclusive reference to the RPC
those sold in Pangasinan, 100 were sold to Chua Hai • Proper remedy lies in a civil suit and attachment
4. Ong Shu filed a case against Soto for estafa. He also filed a petition
asking thatthe700 iron sheets be returned to him (at the meantime, DISPOSITION: Petition granted. Order of the court revoked and set aside. G
they were deposited in the Manila Police Department) alvanized Iron Sheets returned to Chua Hai.
5. Chua Hai opposed the petition, but the court still granted the return
of the sheets to Ong Shu Justice Felix, concurrin: Agrees with majority decision but basis of his vote is
6. Chua Hai presented amotion for reconsideration alleging: the court's that the Article105of the RPC which was relied upon by the court cannot be i
order of return violated the contract of deposit with the Manila Police nvoked and applied in the case at bar
Department, that the return amounted to deprivation of his property Where the ownership of the effects of the crime has been transferred to
without due process of law, and that Article 105 of the RPC an innocent third party, restitution in Article 105 is limited to cases where
(restitution of items subject of theft/estafa) can only be invoked after the offended party was illegally deprived of the thing (theft, robbery) but
termination of the criminal case, not while it is pending. not to cases where the offended party has been deprived of his property
7. The trial court still did not heed Chua Hai's protest, hence this which he delivered to the purchaser with the expectatiom of receiving
appeal. consideration for the sale
RULING + RATIO:
NO
• To deprive the possessor in good faith of the chattels possessed
violatesthe rule in Article 559
• As presumptive owner, Chua Hai is entitled to hold and enjoy the