EDCA Publishing vs.

Santos, 184 SCRA 614 (1990)

Facts: EDCA sold 406 books to Jose Cruz wherein the latter issued a check as payment.
Cruz in turn sold 120 of those books to Leonor Santos. Meanwhile, EDCA became
suspicious of Cruz when he placed his second order. They investigated and found out that
Jose Cruz was an impostor and the check he issued was drawn against a closed account.
EDCA then forcibly took the 120 books from Santos.

Issue: Whether or not EDCA may retrieve the books from Santos.

Ruling: NO. Santos was a purchaser in good faith and exercised due diligence when he
asked for the invoice from EDCA before purchasing it from Cruz. 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 that ownership shall not pass
until full payment, delivery of the thing sold will effectively transfer ownership to the
buyer who can in turn transfer it to another. Ownership of the books passed to Tomas
upon the delivery thereof. He had the right to transfer the same to Santos. The fact that he
did not pay for the books only warrants rescission or an action for payment. EDCA cannot
be considered to have been unlawfully deprived under the CC as to warrant recovery of
the books from Santos. Possession of movable property acquired in good faith is
equivalent to title

Aznar vs. Yapdiangco, 13 SCRA 486 (1965)

Facts: Teodoro Santos placed a classified ad to sell his Ford Fairlane vehicle. De Dios
contacted them while posing as Marella's nephew. Teodoro negotiated with Marella, who
agreed to purchase the vehicle but stipulated that he would only make the payment once the
vehicle had been registered in his name. Teodoro gave his son Irineo the instruction to keep
De Dios until the automobile has been paid in full. Although the Deed was registered in his
name, Marella has not paid, hence he has not received the paperwork. Marella pleaded with
Ireneo that he and De Dios proceed to Marella’s sister to secure the shortage of cash.
Marella also induced Ireneo to give him the documents under the pretext that he will show
them to his lawyer. Ireneo agreed. They proceeded thereto, Ireneo was accompanied by De
Dios and an anonymous person. De Dios made Ireneo wait and thereafter escaped with the
car and the deed. Marella was then able to sell the car to Aznar. The police thereafter seized
the car in Aznar’s possession. Aznar countered with a complaint for Replevin.

Issue: Whether or not Santos may recover from Aznar.

Ruling: YES. It should be recalled that while there was indeed a contract of sale between
Marella and 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. Teodoro was clearly
unlawfully deprived of the car. There was no valid delivery to Marella, hence the latter
acquired no title to the car. He neither had a voidable title under Article 1506 nor was it
delivered to him. Santos has a better right. Moreover Article 559 (Irrevindicability) does
not apply. The common law principle that where 1 of 2 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 law.