1

Rivera v. Ong
G.R. No. L-11176 December 21, 1917 J. Street
petitioners
Marciano Rivera
respondents
Ong Che
summary
Ong has better right on goods bought at a yard sale. If the same thing should have
been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who
may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable
property.

facts of the case
The Lichauco Brothers had a yard sale. Rivera alleged that on Jan 8 he purchased according to receipt, two
complete steam-boilers, with chimneys; one steam motor complete; one pair of twin rice hullers complete, and
a feeding pump (donkey) for boilers for 5,500 php and received a receipt from Crisanto Lichauco. He did not
take possession of the property.
On Feb 9, Ong bought from the Lichauco Brothers a lot of old iron, machinery and junk for 1,100 php. He
immediately took possession of the materials he bought. Later on, Rivera took possession of the things he
supposed himself to be the purchaser and found many of the accessory and auxiliary parts were missing, upon
investigation, he found our that these articles were held by Ong, by virtue of the sale that took place on Feb 9.
CFI ruled in favor of Ong, hence this appeal.

issue
Who has better title to the articles? ONG.

ratio

Ong has better title than Rivera
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 CC 1473 (NCC 1544), a better
title than the first purchaser, who has never had possession at all. 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.

The House of Lichauco had authority to sell articles
Crisanto Lichauco testified that the property sold by him to Rivera was the property of Galo Lichauco. There is
grave doubt as to the 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 and it is not made clear
that Galo had ever become its exclusive owner. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the defendant tends to
show that the things acquired by him, were bought from Faustino Lichauco as property of the house.

Plaintiff failed to prove title
It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove title in himself by a preponderance of the evidence; and he could
not recover merely upon the weakness of the defendants title. The defendant had, in his favor, the fact that he
was a purchaser in good faith and had acquired lawful possession. There is a presumption arising from such
possession that he was the owner. The mere fact that the property originally belonged to Galo was not
sufficient to defeat a title acquired by the defendant through the house of Lichauco.

Refusal of lower court for a continuance in order to call witness did not constitute grave abuse of discretion
The plaintiff was appraised from the nature of the issue raised that the question to be tried was that of
ownership and he should have been ready with the witnesses to prove it. He was not entitled to a continuance
2
on the ground of the absence of those important witnesses unless he showed that he had used reasonable
diligence to secure their attendance.