Aznar v Yapdiangco

G.R. No. L- 18536, March 31, 1965

FACTS:
Theodoro Santos advertised in the newspapers the sale of his Ford Fairlane 500. After the
advertisement, a certain de Dios, claiming to be the nephew of Vicente Marella, went to the
residence of Santos and expressed his uncle’s intent to purchase the car.

Since Santos wasn't around, it was Irineo (son of Theodoro) who talked with de Dios. On
being informed, Santos advised his son to see Marella, which the son did. Marella
expressed his intention to purchase the car. A deed of sale was executed and the
registration was changed to the name of Marella.

Upon arriving at the house of Vicente Marella, he said that his money was short and that he
had to borrow from his sister. Marella then instructed de Dios and Irineo to go the supposed
house of the sister to obtain the money with an unidentified person. He also asked Irineo to
leave the deed to have his lawyer see it. Relying on the good faith of Marella, Irineo did as
requested.

Upon arriving at the house of Marella’s supposed to be sister, de Dios and the unidentified
person then disappeared together with the car. Santos reported the incident to the
authorities.

Thereafter, Marella was able to sell the land to Aznar. While in possession of the car, police
authorities confiscated the same from him. Aznar filed an action for replevin (to recover the
car). Claiming ownership of the vehicle, he prayed for its delivery to him.

ISSUE:
Who has better right to the car?

HELD:

Santos, the true owner has better right to the car.

“Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to title.
Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may
recover it from the person in possession of the same.

"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 obtain its return without
reimbursing the price paid therefor."

The lower court was correct in applying Article 559 of the Civil Code to the case at bar. For
under it, the rule is to the effect that if the owner has lost the thing, or if he has been
unlawfully deprived of it, he has a right to recover it, not only from the finder, thief or
robber, but also from the third person who may have acquired it in good faith from such
finder, thief or robber. The said article establishes two exceptions to the general rule of
irrevindicability to wit: when the owner (1) has lost the thing, or (2) has been unlawfully
deprived thereof. In these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as against the
owner, who may recover it without paying any indemnity, except when the possessor
acquired it in a public sale.
In the case of Cruz v. Pahati, "Under Article 559 of the new Civil Code, a Person illegally
deprived of any movable may recover it from 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 therefor.
In the present case, plaintiff has been illegally deprived of his car through the ingenious
scheme of defendant B to enable the latter to dispose of it as if he were the owner thereof.
Plaintiff, therefore, can still recover possession of the car even if it is in the possession of a
third party who had acquired it in good faith from defendant B. The maxim that "no man
can transfer to another a better title than he has himself’ obtains in the civil as well as in
the common law."

Moreover, for the legal acquisition and transfer of ownership and other property rights, the
thing transferred must be delivered, inasmuch as, according to settled jurisprudence the
tradition of the thing is a necessary and indispensable requisite in the acquisition of said
ownership by virtue of a contract.

So long as property is not delivered, the ownership over it is not transferred by contract
merely but by delivery. Contracts only constitute titles or rights to the transfer or
acquisition of ownership, while delivery or tradition is the method of accomplishing the
same, the title and the method of acquiring it being different in our law.

In the case on hand, 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.