Title: AZNAR vs.

RAFAEL

G.R. No. L-18536    

Characters:

Jose B. Aznar, Plaintiff-Appellant (nagkaso)

Rafael Yapdiangco, Defendant-Appellee (kinasuhan)
Teodoro Santos, Intervenor-Appellee. (kinasuhan)

SYPNOSIS: The rightful owner of the thing unlawfully deprived thereof has better
right than a person who subsequently acquires the same in good faith and for value.

FACTS:

On May 1959 Teodoro Santos advertised in two metropolitan papers the sale of his
FORD FAIRLANE 500. On the same day in the afternoon, certain De dios went to
the residence of Santos and expressed that Vicenta Marella his uncle intent’s to
purchase the car. Since Santos was not around on that time, he advised his son
Irineo who the one talked with De dios to see Marella.

After Marella expressed the intention to buy the car, a deed of sale was executed as
well as the registration of the said questioned car was made to changed to the name
of Marella because based on their contract the purchase price of 14,700 will be paid
only after the car had been registered in his Marella name. But even after the
registration of name has made the price still has not been paid.

From the Motor Vehicles Office, Teodoro Santos returned to his house. He gave the
registration papers and a copy of the deed of sale to his son, Irineo, and instructed
him not to part with them until Marella shall have given the full payment for the car.
And then Marella upon payment claimed that he is short of 2,000 so he advised to go
to his sister house to get money, upon arriving in marella sister house, Marella
instruct Irineo to leave the deed of sale to have his lawyer see, Irineo relying on his
good faith leave the deed as requested, and went to Marella’s sister house with De
dios.

Marella, however, fraudulently took possession of the car by stealing it, and
thereafter selling the same to one Jose B. Aznar for 15,000. The latter was found by
the lower courts to be a buyer in good faith and for a valuable consideration. The
stealing incident, however, had been reported to the police who seized and
confiscated the subjective vehicle in consequence of the report to them by Teodoro
Santos that the said car was unlawfully taken from him.

Thus, Aznar filed a complaint for replevin (mabalik sa kanya yung car since
wrongfully taken daw to) against Yapdiangco of the Philippine Constabulary. Santos
intervened.
The CFI ruled that Teodoro Santos is entitled to the possession of the property. The
SC affirmed.

ISSUE: Between Teodoro Santos and the plaintiff-appellant, Jose B. Aznar, who has
a better right to the possession of the disputed automobile?

Rulling: Teodoro Santos has a better right to the questioned car.

The lower court was correct in applying art. 559. Art. 559 is applicable in this case, to
wit: as regards a personal property, a person who either a) lost the thing, or b)
unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover the same from the person who has
possession thereof without reimbursement, except when the latter acquired it from a
public auction, in which case, reimbursement is in order. The rule holds even if the
person who obtained possession of the same acquired it in good faith and for value.
In this case, it was established that Santos was unlawfully deprived of the subject
property. He may thus recover the same from the current possessor, Aznar.

Because the car in question was never delivered to the vendee by the vendor as to
complete or consummate the transfer of ownership by virtue of the contract. It should
be recalled that while there was indeed a contract of sale between Vicente Marella
and Teodoro Santos, the former, as vendee, took possession of the subject matter
thereof by stealing the same while it was in the custody of the latter's son. Thus
Marella, from whom Aznar obtained his title, is not vested with the ownership of the
car in question as there had been no delivery to him.

The equitable principle that where one of two innocent persons must suffer by a
fraud perpetrated by another, the law imposes the loss upon the party who, by his
misplaced confidence, has enabled the fraud to be committed, cannot be applied in a
case which is covered by an express provision of Art. 559.
Title: EDCA vs. SANTOS BOOKSTORE

G.R. No. 80298 

Characters:

Petitioner: EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP

Respondents: THE SPOUSES LEONOR and GERARDO SANTOS, doing business
under the name and style of "SANTOS BOOKSTORE,"

Synopsis: The validity of the sale is not affected by defects in the performance of
the obligations under the same, e.g. check issued as payment is dishonoured.

FACTS:

A person identifying himself as Professor Jose Cruz placed an order by telephone wi
th the petitioner company for 406 books, payable on delivery. Herein petitioner
prepared and delivered the same together with an invoice. In turn Cruz issued a
personal check covering the purchase price of P8,995.65. Cruz then sold 120 of the
books to private respondent Leonor Santos who, after verifying the seller's
ownership from the invoice he showed her, paid him P1,700.00.

Meanwhile, EDCA having become suspicious over a second order placed by Cruz
even before clearing of his first check, Petitioner made an inquiry with the De la Salle
College where Cruz had claimed to be a dean. Petitioner was informed that there
was no such person in its employ. It was found out that Cruz had no more account or
deposit with the Philippine Amanah Bank, against which he had drawn the payment
check. With the aid of policemen Cruz was trapped. His real name is Tomas de la
Peña. It was found out that 120 of the books he had ordered from EDCA were sold
to the private respondents.

Petioner and the police went to Santos’ store and seized the subject books without
warrant. The private respondents sued for recovery of the books after demand for
their return was rejected by EDCA. The Municipal Trial Court ruled in favour of
private respondents, which was sustained by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the same. Hence, this petition. EDCA sought to recover the same
arguing that Santos was not the lawful owner of the books having failed to produce
any receipt to prove that she bought the same; and that having been unlawfully
deprived of said books, it is entitled to recover the same under Art. 559.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner unlawfully deprived of the books because the
check issued by the impostor in payment there for was dishonoured. NO

RULLINGS: The sale between EDCA and the impostor was valid, the sale being
consensual in character.

It is clear that ownership in the thing sold shall not pass to the buyer until full
payment of the purchase price only if there is a stipulation to that effect. Otherwise,
the rule is that such ownership shall pass from the vendor to the vendee upon the
actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if the purchase price has not yet
been paid. Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to rescind the
contract, or to criminal prosecution in the case of bouncing checks. But absent the
stipulation above noted, delivery of the thing sold will effectively transfer ownership
to the buyer who can in turn transfer it to another Actual delivery of the books having
been made, Cruz acquired ownership over the books which he could then validly
transfer to the private respondents. The fact that he had not yet paid for them to
EDCA was a matter between him and EDCA and did not impair the title acquired by
the private respondents to the books.

Article 559 provides that the possession of movable property acquired in good faith
is equivalent to a title, thus dispensing with further proof. Leonor Santos took care to
ascertain first that the books belonged to Cruz before she agreed to purchase them.
The private respondent did not have to go beyond that invoice to satisfy herself that
the books being offered for sale by Cruz belonged to him; yet she did. Although the
title of Cruz was presumed under Article 559 by his mere possession of the books,
these being movable property, Leonor Santos nevertheless demanded more proof
before deciding to buy them.

Petition is denied.