G.R.NO. L-36249 March 29, 1985 ANIANO OBAA, petitioner, vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ANICETO SANDOVAL, respondents. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: FACTS: SANDOVAL is the owner and manager of the "Sandoval and Sons Rice Mill" located in Rosales, Pangasinan. He is engaged in the buying and selling of palay. On November 21, 1964, SANDOVAL was approached by a certain Chan Lin who offered to purchase from him 170 cavans of clean rice (wagwag variety) at the price of P37.26 per cavan, delivery to be made the following day at petitioner's store in San Fernando, La Union, with payment to be made thereat by Chan Lin to SANDOVAL's representative. SANDOVAL accepted the offer as he knew petitioner and had had previous transactions with him. As agreed, the 170 cavans of rice were transported the following day on a truck belonging to SANDOVAL to petitioner's store in San Fernando, La Union. Chan Lin accompanied the shipment. Upon arrival thereat, the goods were unloaded but when the truck driver attempted to collect the purchase price from Chan Lin, the latter was nowhere to be found. The driver tried to collect from petitioner, but the latter refused stating that he had purchase the goods from Chan Lin at P33.00 per cavan and that the price therefore had already been paid to Chan Lin. Further demands having been met with refusal, SANDOVAL, as plaintiff, filed suit for replevin against petitioner. ISSUE: WON Sandoval still had the right to take back the rice from Petitioner considering that it was feloniously acquired from the former by Chan Lin. HELD: No. Sandoval no longer had the right to take back the rice because the sale between him and Chan Lin had already been perfected. Ownership of the rice was effectively transferred to Chan Lin upon delivery to him in San Fernando La Union. At the very least, Chan Lin had a rescissible title to the goods for the non payment of the purchase price, but which had not been rescinded at the time of sale to Obana. However, the facts also established that Chan Lin returned to Obana the money which the former collected. The sale between them had therefore been rescinded. Thereby, the petitioner was divested of any claim to the rice. In law and in equity, Sandoval is entitled to recover the rice from the petitioner.