10/28/2019 G.R. No. 11176 December 21, 1917 - MARCIANO RIVERA v.

IVERA v. ONG CHE<br /><br />037 Phil 355 : DECEMBER 1917 - PHILIPPINE SU…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > December 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 11176 December
21, 1917 - MARCIANO RIVERA v. ONG CHE

037 Phil 355:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 11176. December 21, 1917. ]

MARCIANO RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONG CHE, Defendant-Appellee.

Ramon Salinas for Appellant.

J.C. Hixson for Appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. SALE; ACQUISITION OF TITLE BY SECOND PURCHASER. — the owner of certain mill machinery
exposed it for sale upon the premises of L, with authority in the latter to sell it. While the property
remained at this place the owner, acting through another agent, C, sold the property to the plaintiff R.
Before it was removed by the latter, L, by mistake, sold part of the same machinery to the defendant O,
who purchased in good faith and took possession. Held: In an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
the disputed property, that the defendant had acquired the title under article 1473 of the Civil Code.

2. PROCEDURE; CONTINUANCE. — An application for a continuance on the ground of the absence of

material witnesses is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be
disturbed unless it clearly appears that such discretion was abused and that by the refusal of the
continuance a party has without his fault been deprived of an opportunity of presenting his case of
defense.

DebtKollect Company, Inc. DECISION

STREET, J. :

For some time prior the events which gave origin to this lawsuit, the house of Lichauco, or Lichauco
Brother had offered for sale a certain old machinery and boilers which were deposited and exposed for
sale in a yard at Tanduay, in the city of Manila. The plaintiff, Marciano Rivera, alleges that upon January
8, 1912, he purchased some of this old material for the price of P5.500, and received a receipt from
Cresanto Lichauco showing that he had become such purchaser. These things consisted, according to said
receipt, of two complete steam-boilers, with chimneys; one steam motor (15 by 30 inches) complete;
one pair of twin rice hullers complete, and a feeding pump (donkey) for boilers.

The plaintiff, however, did not take possession of the property, which remained in the same place. It
further appears that upon February 9, 1912, the defendants, Ong Che, bought from Lichauco Brothers a
lot of old iron, machinery, and junk for the sum of P1,100. This purchaser took immediate possession of
the materials purchased by him. Later, when Marciano Rivera appeared to take possession of the things
of which he supposed himself to the purchaser, under the receipt given by Crisanto Lichauco, he found
that many of the accessory and auxiliary parts of the boilers, motor, and rice mill were wanting; and
upon investigation it developed that these articles were held by the defendant, Ong Che, and were
claimed by him as owner by virtue of the purchase effected by him upon February 9, as stated above.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1917decemberdecisions.php?id=266 1/3
10/28/2019 G.R. No. 11176 December 21, 1917 - MARCIANO RIVERA v. ONG CHE<br /><br />037 Phil 355 : DECEMBER 1917 - PHILIPPINE SU…
ChanRobles Intellectual Property The plaintiff thereupon instituted the present action to recover the articles in question alleging that he
was the true owner thereof. At the hearing in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila judgment
Division was given in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff has appealed.

We concur in the conclusion reached by the judge of the Court of First Instance that the defendant, Ong
Che, was a purchaser of these articles in good faith. It is furthermore uncontroverted that he acquired
possession by virtue of his purchase. He, therefore, undoubtedly has, under article 1473 of the Civil
Code, a better title than the first purchaser, who has never had possession at all. The only doubt as to
the application of that article to the present case arises from the fact that there is some conflict in the
testimony upon the question as to who was the original owner. It is to be inferred from the testimony
that the house of Lichauco consists of Faustino Lichauco and Galo Lichauco, and it would seem that
Crisanto Lichauco, who effected the sale of Rivera, is not a member of that establishment. Crisanto
testified that the property sold by him to the plaintiff Rivera, including the articles which are now in
dispute, was the property of Galo Lichauco. There is grave doubt as to correctness of this statement,
however, as the same witness admits that the machinery sold by him to Rivera had been taken out of an
old mill owned by Lichauco Brothers in Dagupan; and it is not made clear that Galo Lichauco had ever
become its exclusive owner. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the defendant tends to show that
the things acquitted by him, including the articles in dispute, were bought from Faustino Lichauco as
property of the house. At any rate we find that, under the circumstances disclosed in this case, and even
conceding that property belong to Galo Lichauco, the house of Lichauco had authority to sell it. In this
view the case presented is that where two different agents of the same owner successively negotiated
sales to two different purchasers, and it is obvious that, under the article of the Civil Code cited above,
the second purchaser having acquired possession first must be declared the true owner. In our view of
the facts it was merely a case where a mistake was made by the house of Lichauco in selling something
that had already been sold.

Other aspects of the case are equally fatal to the contention of the plaintiff. It was incumbent upon the
plaintiff to prove title in himself, as against the defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence; and he
could not recover merely upon the weakness of the defendant’s title. (Belen v. Belen, 13 Phil. Rep., 202.)
The court below held that the plaintiff had failed to prove title in himself and we see the no reason for
disturbing the judgment on this point. The defendant had, in his favor, the fact that he was purchaser in
good faith and had acquired lawful possession. There is a presumption arising from such possession that
he was the owner (sec. 334 [10], Code of Civel Procedure); and the mere fact, if such it be, that the
property originally belonged to Galo Lichauco was not sufficient, without more, to defeat a title acquired
by the defendant through the house of Lichauco.

It should be stated that at the hearing the plaintiff himself did not appear as a witness. Furthermore, no
steps were taken, prior to the trial to secure the attendance of either Galo Lichauco or Faustino Lichauco,
both of whom would have been most material witnesses for the plaintiff if his contention is correct.

December-1917 At the close of the trial in the court below, plaintiff’s counsel asked for a continuance in order to call these
witnesses. The court refused to grant a continuance for such purpose. In this we think the court did not
Jurisprudence                  abuse its discretion, and its action in this respect does not constitute reversible error. The plaintiff was
appraised from the nature of the issue raised that the question to be tried was that of ownership and he
G.R. No. L-11872 December 1, 1917 - DOMINGO should have been ready with the witnesses to prove it. He was not entitled to a continuance on the
MERCADO, ET AL. v. JOSE ESPIRITU ground of the absence of those important witnesses unless he showed that he had used reasonable
diligence to secure their attendance. An application for a continuance of cause is addressed to the sound
037 Phil 215 legal discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed, unless it clearly appears
that such discretion has been abused, and that by the refusal of the continuance a party has been
G.R. No. L-11933 December 1, 1917 - ALBERTO without his fault deprived of an opportunity of making his case or defense.
BARRETTO v. LEONARDO F. BARRETTO ET AL.
It results that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs of this instance against the
037 Phil 234 appellant. So ordered.
G.R. No. 11513 December 4, 1917 - LAMBERTO Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo, Malcolm, and Avanceña, JJ., concur.
SONGCO v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

037 Phil 254

G.R. No. 12392 December 4, 1917 - UNITED

STATES v. FRANCISCO BALABA
Back to Home | Back to Main
037 Phil 260

G.R. No. L-11306 December 6, 1917 - ALEJANDRO

IBARRA v. LEOPOLDO AVEYRO, ET AL. QUICK SEARCH

037 Phil 273

G.R. No. L-11717 December 6, 1917 - GO KIAM CO 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
v. LIM TUICO ET AL.
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
037 Phil 283 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. L-11325 December 7, 1917 - MONICA G. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
ROLDAN v. LIM PONZO & CO. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
037 Phil 285 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
G.R. No. L-12739 December 8, 1917 - UNITED
STATES v. MARIANO M. GALLEGOS ET AL. 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
037 Phil 289
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. L-12934 December 8, 1917 - PIO ANCHETA 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
v. MAURO ORTIZ ET AL.
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
037 Phil 295 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
G.R. Nos. L-13013-14 December 11, 1917 - UNITED 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
STATES v. NICOLAS DY JUECO 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
037 Phil 301

G.R. No. L-13316 December 11, 1917 - L. J.

MADARANG ET AL. v. FRANCISCO SANTA MARIA

037 Phil 304 Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

G.R. No. L-12678 December 15, 1917 - UNITED
STATES v. MORO JAMAD

037 Phil 305

G.R. No. L-12916 December 16, 1917 - UNITED

STATES v. LAURO FONTANILLA

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1917decemberdecisions.php?id=266 2/3
10/28/2019 G.R. No. 11176 December 21, 1917 - MARCIANO RIVERA v. ONG CHE<br /><br />037 Phil 355 : DECEMBER 1917 - PHILIPPINE SU…

037 Phil 319

G.R. No. L-13085 December 17, 1917 - UNITED

STATES v. EXEQUIEL S. VILLALON

037 Phil 322

G.R. No. L-11300 December 20, 1917 - NICASIO

CABELLO ET AL. v. ENGRACIA CABELLO ET AL.

037 Phil 328

G.R. No. L-12462 December 20, 1917 - UNITED

STATES v. SIMEON GUENDIA

037 Phil 337

G.R. No. L-13020 December 20, 1917 - UNITED

STATES v. JOAQUIN PABALN ET AL.

037 Phil 352

G.R. No. 11176 December 21, 1917 - MARCIANO

RIVERA v. ONG CHE

037 Phil 355

G.R. No. L-12855 December 21, 1917 - UNITED

STATES v. ROQUE DATO, ET AL.

037 Phil 359

G.R. No. 12644 December 22, 1917 - UNITED

STATES v. LEON MORALES ET AL

037 Phil 364

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1917decemberdecisions.php?id=266 3/3