Property 081419
Property 081419
G.R. No. 80298 April 26, 1990 private respondents. Ownership of the books was recognized in
the private respondents by the Municipal Trial Court, 1 which was
EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP., petitioner, sustained by the Regional Trial Court, 2 which was in turn
vs. sustained by the Court of Appeals. 3 The petitioner asks us to
THE SPOUSES LEONOR and GERARDO SANTOS, doing business declare that all these courts have erred and should be reversed.
under the name and style of "SANTOS BOOKSTORE," and THE
COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. This case arose when on October 5, 1981, a person identifying
himself as Professor Jose Cruz placed an order by telephone with
Emiliano S. Samson, R. Balderrama-Samson, Mary Anne B. Samson the petitioner company for 406 books, payable on delivery. 4
for petitioner. EDCA prepared the corresponding invoice and delivered the books
Cendana Santos, Delmundo & Cendana for private respondents. as ordered, for which Cruz issued a personal check covering the
purchase price of P8,995.65. 5 On October 7, 1981, Cruz sold 120
of the books to private respondent Leonor Santos who, after
CRUZ, J.: verifying the seller's ownership from the invoice he showed her,
paid him P1,700.00. 6
The case before us calls for the interpretation of Article 559 of the
Civil Code and raises the particular question of when a person Meanwhile, EDCA having become suspicious over a second order
may be deemed to have been "unlawfully deprived" of movable placed by Cruz even before clearing of his first check, made
property in the hands of another. The article runs in full as inquiries with the De la Salle College where he had claimed to be a
follows: dean and was informed that there was no such person in its
employ. Further verification revealed that Cruz had no more
Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good account or deposit with the Philippine Amanah Bank, against
faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any which he had drawn the payment check. 7 EDCA then went to the
movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it police, which set a trap and arrested Cruz on October 7, 1981.
from the person in possession of the same. Investigation disclosed his real name as Tomas de la Peña and his
sale of 120 of the books he had ordered from EDCA to the private
If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been respondents. 8
unlawfully deprived has acquired it in good faith at a public sale,
the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price On the night of the same date, EDCA sought the assistance of the
paid therefor. police in Precinct 5 at the UN Avenue, which forced their way into
the store of the private respondents and threatened Leonor
The movable property in this case consists of books, which were Santos with prosecution for buying stolen property. They seized
bought from the petitioner by an impostor who sold it to the
Page |2
the 120 books without warrant, loading them in a van belonging we agree. Leonor Santos first ascertained the ownership of the
to EDCA, and thereafter turned them over to the petitioner. 9 books from the EDCA invoice showing that they had been sold to
Cruz, who said he was selling them for a discount because he was
Protesting this high-handed action, the private respondents sued in financial need. Private respondents are in the business of
for recovery of the books after demand for their return was buying and selling books and often deal with hard-up sellers who
rejected by EDCA. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued urgently have to part with their books at reduced prices. To
and the petitioner, after initial refusal, finally surrendered the Leonor Santos, Cruz must have been only one of the many such
books to the private respondents. 10 As previously stated, the sellers she was accustomed to dealing with. It is hardly bad faith
petitioner was successively rebuffed in the three courts below and for any one in the business of buying and selling books to buy
now hopes to secure relief from us. them at a discount and resell them for a profit.
To begin with, the Court expresses its disapproval of the arbitrary But the real issue here is whether the petitioner has been
action of the petitioner in taking the law into its own hands and unlawfully deprived of the books because the check issued by the
forcibly recovering the disputed books from the private impostor in payment therefor was dishonored.
respondents. The circumstance that it did so with the assistance
of the police, which should have been the first to uphold legal and In its extended memorandum, EDCA cites numerous cases holding
peaceful processes, has compounded the wrong even more that the owner who has been unlawfully deprived of personal
deplorably. Questions like the one at bar are decided not by property is entitled to its recovery except only where the property
policemen but by judges and with the use not of brute force but was purchased at a public sale, in which event its return is subject
of lawful writs. to reimbursement of the purchase price. The petitioner is begging
the question. It is putting the cart before the horse. Unlike in the
Now to the merits cases invoked, it has yet to be established in the case at bar that
EDCA has been unlawfully deprived of the books.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the private respondents
have not established their ownership of the disputed books The petitioner argues that it was, because the impostor acquired
because they have not even produced a receipt to prove they had no title to the books that he could have validly transferred to the
bought the stock. This is unacceptable. Precisely, the first private respondents. Its reason is that as the payment check
sentence of Article 559 provides that "the possession of movable bounced for lack of funds, there was a failure of consideration
property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title," thus that nullified the contract of sale between it and Cruz.
dispensing with further proof.
The contract of sale is consensual and is perfected once
The argument that the private respondents did not acquire the agreement is reached between the parties on the subject matter
books in good faith has been dismissed by the lower courts, and and the consideration. According to the Civil Code:
Page |3
Bin. Asiatic not having been paid by Ang, it sued for the recovery
Art. 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is of the articles from Tan, who claimed he had validly bought them
a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the from Ang, paying for the same in cash. Finding that there was no
contract and upon the price. conspiracy between Tan and Ang to deceive Asiatic the Court of
Appeals declared:
From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand
performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the Yet the defendant invoked Article 464 12 of the Civil Code
form of contracts. providing, among other things that "one who has been unlawfully
deprived of personal property may recover it from any person
xxx xxx xxx possessing it." We do not believe that the plaintiff has been
unlawfully deprived of the cartons of Gloco Tonic within the scope
Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to of this legal provision. It has voluntarily parted with them
the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof. pursuant to a contract of purchase and sale. The circumstance
that the price was not subsequently paid did not render illegal a
Art. 1478. The parties may stipulate that ownership in the thing transaction which was valid and legal at the beginning.
shall not pass to the purchaser until he has fully paid the price.
In Tagatac v. Jimenez,13 the plaintiff sold her car to Feist, who
It is clear from the above provisions, particularly the last one sold it to Sanchez, who sold it to Jimenez. When the payment
quoted, that ownership in the thing sold shall not pass to the check issued to Tagatac by Feist was dishonored, the plaintiff sued
buyer until full payment of the purchase only if there is a to recover the vehicle from Jimenez on the ground that she had
stipulation to that effect. Otherwise, the rule is that such been unlawfully deprived of it by reason of Feist's deception. In
ownership shall pass from the vendor to the vendee upon the ruling for Jimenez, the Court of Appeals held:
actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if the
purchase price has not yet been paid. The point of inquiry is whether plaintiff-appellant Trinidad C.
Tagatac has been unlawfully deprived of her car. At first blush, it
Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to would seem that she was unlawfully deprived thereof, considering
rescind the contract, or to criminal prosecution in the case of that she was induced to part with it by reason of the chicanery
bouncing checks. But absent the stipulation above noted, delivery practiced on her by Warner L. Feist. Certainly, swindling, like
of the thing sold will effectively transfer ownership to the buyer robbery, is an illegal method of deprivation of property. In a
who can in turn transfer it to another. manner of speaking, plaintiff-appellant was "illegally deprived" of
her car, for the way by which Warner L. Feist induced her to part
In Asiatic Commercial Corporation v. Ang,11 the plaintiff sold with it is illegal and is punished by law. But does this "unlawful
some cosmetics to Francisco Ang, who in turn sold them to Tan Sit
Page |4
deprivation" come within the scope of Article 559 of the New Civil the private respondents. The fact that he had not yet paid for
Code? them to EDCA was a matter between him and EDCA and did not
impair the title acquired by the private respondents to the books.
xxx xxx xxx
One may well imagine the adverse consequences if the phrase
. . . The fraud and deceit practiced by Warner L. Feist earmarks "unlawfully deprived" were to be interpreted in the manner
this sale as a voidable contract (Article 1390 N.C.C.). Being a suggested by the petitioner. A person relying on the seller's title
voidable contract, it is susceptible of either ratification or who buys a movable property from him would have to surrender
annulment. If the contract is ratified, the action to annul it is it to another person claiming to be the original owner who had
extinguished (Article 1392, N.C.C.) and the contract is cleansed not yet been paid the purchase price therefor. The buyer in the
from all its defects (Article 1396, N.C.C.); if the contract is second sale would be left holding the bag, so to speak, and would
annulled, the contracting parties are restored to their respective be compelled to return the thing bought by him in good faith
situations before the contract and mutual restitution follows as a without even the right to reimbursement of the amount he had
consequence (Article 1398, N.C.C.). paid for it.
However, as long as no action is taken by the party entitled, either It bears repeating that in the case before us, Leonor Santos took
that of annulment or of ratification, the contract of sale remains care to ascertain first that the books belonged to Cruz before she
valid and binding. When plaintiff-appellant Trinidad C. Tagatac agreed to purchase them. The EDCA invoice Cruz showed her
delivered the car to Feist by virtue of said voidable contract of assured her that the books had been paid for on delivery. By
sale, the title to the car passed to Feist. Of course, the title that contrast, EDCA was less than cautious — in fact, too trusting in
Feist acquired was defective and voidable. Nevertheless, at the dealing with the impostor. Although it had never transacted with
time he sold the car to Felix Sanchez, his title thereto had not him before, it readily delivered the books he had ordered (by
been avoided and he therefore conferred a good title on the telephone) and as readily accepted his personal check in payment.
latter, provided he bought the car in good faith, for value and It did not verify his identity although it was easy enough to do
without notice of the defect in Feist's title (Article 1506, N.C.C.). this. It did not wait to clear the check of this unknown drawer.
There being no proof on record that Felix Sanchez acted in bad Worse, it indicated in the sales invoice issued to him, by the
faith, it is safe to assume that he acted in good faith. printed terms thereon, that the books had been paid for on
delivery, thereby vesting ownership in the buyer.
The above rulings are sound doctrine and reflect our own
interpretation of Article 559 as applied to the case before us. Surely, the private respondent did not have to go beyond that
invoice to satisfy herself that the books being offered for sale by
Actual delivery of the books having been made, Cruz acquired Cruz belonged to him; yet she did. Although the title of Cruz was
ownership over the books which he could then validly transfer to presumed under Article 559 by his mere possession of the books,
Page |5
G.R. No. L-18536 March 31, 1965 address. At this meeting, Marella agreed to buy the car for
P14,700.00 on the understanding that the price would be paid
JOSE B. AZNAR, plaintiff-appellant, only after the car had been registered in his name.
vs.
RAFAEL YAPDIANGCO, defendant-appellee; Irineo Santos then fetched his father who, together with L. De
TEODORO SANTOS, intervenor-appellee. Dios, went to the office of a certain Atty. Jose Padolina where the
deed of the sale for the car was executed in Marella's favor. The
Florentino M. Guanlao for plaintiff-appellant. parties to the contract thereafter proceeded to the Motor
Rafael Yapdiangco in his own behalf as defendant-appellee. Vehicles Office in Quezon City where the registration of the car in
Lorenzo Sumulong, R. B. Hilao and B. S. Felipe for intervenor- Marella's name was effected. Up to this stage of the transaction,
appellee. the purchased price had not been paid.
REGALA, J.: From the Motor Vehicles Office, Teodoro Santos returned to his
house. He gave the registration papers and a copy of the deed of
This is an appeal, on purely legal questions, from a decision of the sale to his son, Irineo, and instructed him not to part with them
Court of First Instance of Quezon City, Branch IV, declaring the until Marella shall have given the full payment for the car. Irineo
intervenor-appellee, Teodoro Santos, entitled to the possession of Santos and L. De Dios then proceeded to 1642 Crisostomo Street,
the car in dispute. Sampaloc, Manila where the former demanded the payment from
Vicente Marella. Marella said that the amount he had on hand
The records before this Court disclose that sometime in May, then was short by some P2,000.00 and begged off to be allowed
1959, Teodoro Santos advertised in two metropolitan papers the to secure the shortage from a sister supposedly living somewhere
sale of his FORD FAIRLANE 500. In the afternoon of May 28, 1959, on Azcarraga Street, also in Manila. Thereafter, he ordered L. De
a certain L. De Dios, claiming to be a nephew of Vicente Marella, Dios to go to the said sister and suggested that Irineo Santos go
went to the Santos residence to answer the ad. However, Teodoro with him. At the same time, he requested the registration papers
Santos was out during this call and only the latter's son, Irineo and the deed of sale from Irineo Santos on the pretext that he
Santos, received and talked with De Dios. The latter told the would like to show them to his lawyer. Trusting the good faith of
young Santos that he had come in behalf of his uncle, Vicente Marella, Irineo handed over the same to the latter and thereupon,
Marella, who was interested to buy the advertised car. in the company of L. De Dios and another unidentified person,
proceeded to the alleged house of Marella's sister.
On being informed of the above, Teodoro Santos instructed his
son to see the said Vicente Marella the following day at his given At a place on Azcarraga, Irineo Santos and L. De Dios alighted
address: 1642 Crisostomo Street, Sampaloc, Manila. And so, in the from the car and entered a house while their unidentified
morning of May 29, 1959, Irineo Santos went to the above companion remained in the car. Once inside, L. De Dios asked
Page |7
Irineo Santos to wait at the sala while he went inside a room. That At the end of the trial, the lower court rendered a decision
was the last that Irineo saw of him. For, after a considerable awarding the disputed motor vehicle to the intervenor-appellee,
length of time waiting in vain for De Dios to return, Irineo went Teodoro Santos. In brief, it ruled that Teodoro Santos had been
down to discover that neither the car nor their unidentified unlawfully deprived of his personal property by Vicente Marella,
companion was there anymore. Going back to the house, he from whom the plaintiff-appellant traced his right. Consequently,
inquired from a woman he saw for L. De Dios and he was told that although the plaintiff-appellant acquired the car in good faith and
no such name lived or was even known therein. Whereupon, for a valuable consideration from Vicente Marella, the said
Irineo Santos rushed to 1642 Crisostomo to see Marella. He found decision concluded, still the intervenor-appellee was entitled to
the house closed and Marella gone. Finally, he reported the its recovery on the mandate of Article 559 of the New Civil Code
matter to his father who promptly advised the police authorities. which provides:
That very same day, or on the afternoon of May 29, 1959 Vicente ART. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good
Marella was able to sell the car in question to the plaintiff- faith is equivalent to title. Nevertheless, one who lost any
appellant herein, Jose B. Aznar, for P15,000.00. Insofar as the movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it
above incidents are concerned, we are bound by the factual from the person in possession of the same.
finding of the trial court that Jose B. Aznar acquired the said car
from Vicente Marella in good faith, for a valuable consideration If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been
and without notice of the defect appertaining to the vendor's unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale,
title. the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price
paid therefor.
While the car in question was thus in the possession of Jose B.
Aznar and while he was attending to its registration in his name, From this decision, Jose B. Aznar appeals.
agents of the Philippine Constabulary seized and confiscated the
same in consequence of the report to them by Teodoro Santos The issue at bar is one and simple, to wit: Between Teodoro
that the said car was unlawfully taken from him. Santos and the plaintiff-appellant, Jose B. Aznar, who has a better
right to the possession of the disputed automobile?
In due time, Jose B. Aznar filed a complaint for replevin against
Captain Rafael Yapdiangco, the head of the Philippine We find for the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro Santos.
Constabulary unit which seized the car in question Claiming
ownership of the vehicle, he prayed for its delivery to him. In the The plaintiff-appellant accepts that the car in question originally
course of the litigation, however, Teodoro Santos moved and was belonged to and was owned by the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro
allowed to intervene by the lower court. Santos, and that the latter was unlawfully deprived of the same by
Vicente Marella. However, the appellant contends that upon the
Page |8
facts of this case, the applicable provision of the Civil Code is For the legal acquisition and transfer of ownership and other
Article 1506 and not Article 559 as was held by the decision under property rights, the thing transferred must be delivered, inasmuch
review. Article 1506 provides: as, according to settled jurisprudence, the tradition of the thing is
a necessary and indispensable requisite in the acquisition of said
ART. 1506. Where the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto, ownership by virtue of contract. (Walter Laston v. E. Diaz & Co. &
but his, title has not been voided at the time of the sale, the buyer the Provincial Sheriff of Albay, supra.)
acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good
faith, for value, and without notice of the seller's defect of title. So long as property is not delivered, the ownership over it is not
transferred by contract merely but by delivery. Contracts only
The contention is clearly unmeritorious. Under the aforequoted constitute titles or rights to the transfer or acquisition of
provision, it is essential that the seller should have a voidable title ownership, while delivery or tradition is the method of
at least. It is very clearly inapplicable where, as in this case, the accomplishing the same, the title and the method of acquiring it
seller had no title at all. being different in our law. (Gonzales v. Roxas, 16 Phil. 51)
Vicente Marella did not have any title to the property under In the case on hand, the car in question was never delivered to
litigation because the same was never delivered to him. He sought the vendee by the vendor as to complete or consummate the
ownership or acquisition of it by virtue of the contract. Vicente transfer of ownership by virtue of the contract. It should be
Marella could have acquired ownership or title to the subject recalled that while there was indeed a contract of sale between
matter thereof only by the delivery or tradition of the car to him. Vicente Marella and Teodoro Santos, the former, as vendee, took
possession of the subject matter thereof by stealing the same
Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, "ownership and other real while it was in the custody of the latter's son.
rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by
donation, by testate and intestate succession, and in consequence There is no adequate evidence on record as to whether Irineo
of certain contracts, by tradition." As interpreted by this Court in a Santos voluntarily delivered the key to the car to the unidentified
host of cases, by this provision, ownership is not transferred by person who went with him and L. De Dios to the place on
contract merely but by tradition or delivery. Contracts only Azcarraga where a sister of Marella allegedly lived. But even if
constitute titles or rights to the transfer or acquisition of Irineo Santos did, it was not the delivery contemplated by Article
ownership, while delivery or tradition is the mode of 712 of the Civil Code. For then, it would be indisputable that he
accomplishing the same (Gonzales v. Rojas, 16 Phil. 51; Ocejo, turned it over to the unidentified companion only so that he may
Perez and Co. v. International Bank, 37 Phil. 631, Fidelity and drive Irineo Santos and De Dios to the said place on Azcarraga and
Deposit Co. v. Wilson, 8 Phil. 51; Kuenzle & Streiff v. Wacke & not to vest the title to the said vehicle to him as agent of Vicente
Chandler, 14 Phil. 610; Easton v. Diaz Co., 32 Phil. 180). Marella. Article 712 above contemplates that the act be coupled
with the intent of delivering the thing. (10 Manresa 132)
Page |9
The lower court was correct in applying Article 559 of the Civil Finally, the plaintiff-appellant here contends that inasmuch as it
Code to the case at bar, for under it, the rule is to the effect that if was the intervenor-appellee who had caused the fraud to be
the owner has lost a thing, or if he has been unlawfully deprived perpetrated by his misplaced confidence on Vicente Marella, he,
of it, he has a right to recover it, not only from the finder, thief or the intervenor-appellee, should be made to suffer the
robber, but also from third persons who may have acquired it in consequences arising therefrom, following the equitable principle
good faith from such finder, thief or robber. The said article to that effect. Suffice it to say in this regard that the right of the
establishes two exceptions to the general rule of irrevindicability, owner to recover personal property acquired in good faith by
to wit, when the owner (1) has lost the thing, or (2) has been another, is based on his being dispossessed without his consent.
unlawfully deprived thereof. In these cases, the possessor cannot The common law principle that where one of two innocent
retain the thing as against the owner, who may recover it without persons must suffer by a fraud perpetrated by another, the law
paying any indemnity, except when the possessor acquired it in a imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced
public sale. (Del Rosario v. Lucena, 8 Phil. 535; Varela v. Finnick, 9 confidence, has enabled the fraud to be committed, cannot be
Phil. 482; Varela v. Matute, 9 Phil. 479; Arenas v. Raymundo, 19 applied in a case which is covered by an express provision of the
Phil. 46. Tolentino, id., Vol. II, p. 261.) new Civil Code, specifically Article 559. Between a common law
principle and a statutory provision, the latter must prevail in this
In the case of Cruz v. Pahati, et al., 52 O.G. 3053 this Court has jurisdiction. (Cruz v. Pahati, supra)
already ruled
that — UPON ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is hereby
dismissed and the decision of the lower court affirmed in full.
Under Article 559 of the new Civil Code, a person illegally Costs against the appellant.
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 had himself" obtains in
the civil as well as in the common law. (U.S. v. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147)
P a g e | 10
TAGATAC VS JIMENEZ obtained, seized and impounded the car, but it was delivered back
to Jimenez upon his filing of a counter-bond.
53 OG 3792
The lower court held that Jimenez had the right of ownership and
FACTS: possession over the car.
Feist paid by means of a postdated check, and the car was It must be noted that Tagatac was not unlawfully deprived of his
delivered to Feist. However, PNB refused to honor the checks and car
told her that Feist had no account in said bank.
In this case, there is a valid transmission of ownership from true
Tagatac notified the law enforcement agencies of the estafa
owner [Tagatac] to the swindler [Feist], considering that they had
committed by Feist, but the latter was not apprehended and the
a contract of sale (note: but such sale is voidable for the fraud and
car disappeared.
deceit by Feist).
Meanwhile, Feist managed succeeded in having the car’s
registration certificate (RC) transferred in his name. He sold the The disputable presumption that a person found in possession of
car to Sanchez, who was able to transfer the registration a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and
certificate to his name. the doer of the whole act does NOT apply in this case because the
car was not stolen from Tagatac, and Jimenez came into
Sanchez then offered to sell the car to defendant Liberato
possession of the car two months after Feist swindled Tagatac.
Jimenez, who bought the car for P10,000 after investigating in the
Motor Vehicles Office. Jimenez was a purchaser in good faith for he was not aware of any
Tagatac discovered that the car was in California Car Exchange’s flaw invalidating the title from the seller of the car
(place where Jimenez displayed the car for sale), so she
In addition, when Jimenez acquired the car, he had no knowledge
demanded from the manager for the delivery of the car, but the
of any flaw in the title of the person from whom he acquired it. It
latter refused.
was only later that he became fully aware that there were some
Tagatac filed a suit for the recovery of the car’s possession, and questions regarding the car, when he filed a petition to dissolve
the sheriff, pursuant to a warrant of seizure that Tagatac Tagatac’s search warrant which had as its subject the car in
question.
P a g e | 11
Nevertheless, at the time he sold the car to Felix Sanchez, his title
thereto had not been avoided and he therefore conferred a good
title on the latter, provided he bought the car in good faith, for
value and without notice of the defect in Feist's title (Article 1506,
N.C.C.). There being no proof on record that Felix Sanchez acted in
bad faith, it is safe to assume that he acted in good faith.
NB: ART. 1506. Where the seller of goods has a voidable title
thereto, but his title has not been avoided at the time of the sale,
the buyer acquires a good title to the goods provided he buys
them in good faith, for value, and without notice of the seller’s
defect of title.
P a g e | 12
EDCA PUBLISHING VS SPS. SANTOS EDCA argues that because Cruz, the impostor acquired no title to
the books, the latter could not have validly transferred such to
G.R. No. 80298, April 26, 1990 Sps. Santos. Its reason is that as the payment check bounced for
lack of funds, there was a failure of consideration that nullified
FACTS:
the contract of sale between it and Cruz.
On October 5, 1981, a person identifying himself as Prof. Jose Cruz
However, upon perusal of the provisions on the Law on Sales, a
ordered 406 books from EDCA Publishing. EDCA Subsequently
contract of sale is consensual and is perfected once agreement is
prepared the corresponding invoice and delivered the books as
reached between the parties on the subject matter and the
ordered, for which Cruz issued a personal check covering the
consideration. As provided in Art. 1478- Ownership in the thing
purchase price of said books. Subsequently on October 7, 1981,
sold shall not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase
Cruz sold 120 of the books to Leonor Santos who, after verifying
only if there is a stipulation to that effect. Otherwise, the rule is
the seller’s ownership from the invoice he showed her, paid him
that such ownership shall pass from the vendor to the vendee
P1,700.
upon the actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if
Upon verification by EDCA, it was discovered that Cruz was not the purchase price has not yet been paid.
employed as professor by De La Salle College and that he had no
Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to
more account or deposit with Phil. Amanah Bank, the bank where
rescind the contract, or to criminal prosecution in the case of
he allegedly drawn the payment check. Upon arrest of Cruz by the
bouncing checks. But absent the stipulation above noted, delivery
police, it was revealed that his real name was Tomas dela Pena
of the thing sold will effectively transfer ownership to the buyer
and that there was a further sale of 120 books to Sps. Santos.
who can in turn transfer it to another.
EDCA, through the assistance of the police forced their way into
Actual delivery of the books having been made, Cruz acquired
the store of Sps. Santos and threatened Leonor with prosecution
ownership over the books which he could then validly transfer to
for buying stolen property. The 120 books were seized and were
the private respondents. The fact that he had not yet paid for
later turned over to EDCA.
them to EDCA was a matter between him and EDCA and did not
This resulted to Sps. Santos filing a case for recovery of the books impair the title acquired by the private respondents to the books.
after their demand for the return of the books was rejected.
Leonor Santos took care to ascertain first that the books belonged
ISSUE: W/N EDCA may retrieve the books from Santos. NO (W/N to Cruz before she agreed to purchase them. The EDCA invoice
EDCA has been unlawfully deprived of the books because the heck Cruz showed her assured her that the books had been paid for on
issued by Cruz in payment thereof was dishonored. NO.) delivery. By contrast, EDCA was less than cautious — in fact, too
trusting in dealing with the impostor. Although it had never
HELD: transacted with him before, it readily delivered the books he had
P a g e | 13
AZNAR VS YAPDIANGCO Thereafter, Marella was able to sell the land to Aznar. While in
possession of the car, police authorities confiscated the same
Facts: from him.
Theodoro Santos advertised in the newspapers the sale of his
Ford Fairlane 500. Aznar filed an action for replevin (to recover the car). Claiming
ownership of the vehicle, he prayed for its delivery to him.
After the advertisement, a certain de Dios, claiming to be the
nephew of Vicente Marella, went to the residence of Santos and In the course of the litigation, however, Teodoro Santos moved
expressed his uncle’s intent to purchase the car. and was allowed to intervene by the lower court.
Since Santos wasn't around, it was Irineo (son of Theodoro) who Lower court ruled in favor of Teodoro Santos saying that he has
talked with de Dios. On being informed, Santos advised his son to been unlawfully deprived of his car and he retains ownership of
see Marella, which the son did. the same.
Marella then instructed de Dios and Irineo to go the supposed Article 559 is applicable in this case and not Article 1506 which
house of the sister to obtain the money with an unidentified was cited by petitioner Aznar
person.
ART. 1506. Where the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto,
He also asked Irineo to leave the deed to have his lawyer see it. but his, title has not been voided at the time of the sale, the buyer
Relying on the good faith of Marella, Irineo did as requested. acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good
faith, for value, and without notice of the seller's defect of title.
Upon arriving at the house of Marella’s supposed to be sister, de
Dios and the unidentified person then disappeared together with The contention is clearly unmeritorious. Under the aforequoted
the car. Santos reported the incident to the authorities. provision, it is essential that the seller should have a voidable title
P a g e | 15
at least. It is very clearly inapplicable where, as in this case, the It should be recalled that while there was indeed a contract of
seller (Marella) had no title at all. sale between Vicente Marella and Teodoro Santos, the former, as
vendee, took possession of the subject matter thereof by stealing
Marella did not have a title over the car because it was never the same while it was in the custody of the latter's son.
delivered to him
Vicente Marella sought ownership or acquisition of it by virtue of There is no adequate evidence on record as to whether Irineo
the contract. Vicente Marella could have acquired ownership or Santos voluntarily delivered the key to the car to the unidentified
title to the subject matter thereof only by the delivery or tradition person who went with him and L. De Dios to the place on
of the car to him. Azcarraga where a sister of Marella allegedly lived. But even if
Irineo Santos did, it was not the delivery contemplated by Article
Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, "ownership and other real 712 of the Civil Code. For then, it would be indisputable that he
rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by turned it over to the unidentified companion only so that he may
donation, by testate and intestate succession, and in consequence drive Irineo Santos and De Dios to the said place on Azcarraga and
of certain contracts, by tradition." As interpreted by this Court in a not to vest the title to the said vehicle to him as agent of Vicente
host of cases, by this provision, ownership is not transferred by Marella. Article 712 above contemplates that the act be coupled
contract merely but by tradition or delivery. Contracts only with the intent of delivering the thing.
constitute titles or rights to the transfer or acquisition of
ownership, while delivery or tradition is the mode of Article 559 was applicable in this case (Doctrine of
accomplishing the same. irrevindicability)
The lower court was correct in applying Article 559 of the Civil
Delivery vs. Tradition Code to the case at bar, for under it, the rule is to the effect that if
the owner has lost a thing, or if he has been unlawfully deprived
So long as property is not delivered, the ownership over it is not of it, he has a right to recover it, not only from the finder, thief or
transferred by contract merely but by delivery. Contracts only robber, but also from third persons who may have acquired it in
constitute titles or rights to the transfer or acquisition of good faith from such finder, thief or robber.
ownership, while delivery or tradition is the method of
accomplishing the same, the title and the method of acquiring it The said article establishes two exceptions to the general rule of
being different in our law. irrevindicability, to wit, when the owner (1) has lost the thing, or
(2) has been unlawfully deprived thereof. In these cases, the
The car in question was never delivered to the vendee by the possessor cannot retain the thing as against the owner, who may
vendor as to complete or consummate the transfer of ownership recover it without paying any indemnity, except when the
by virtue of the contract possessor acquired it in a public sale.
P a g e | 16