Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18536 March 31, 1965
JOSE B. AZNAR, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
RAAEL !AP"#ANGCO, defendant-appellee;
TEO"ORO SANTOS, intervenor-appellee.
Florentino M. Guanlao for plaintiff-appellant.
Rafael Yapdiangco in his own behalf as defendant-appellee.
Lorenzo Sumulong, R. . !ilao and . S. Felipe for inter"enor-appellee.
REGALA, J.:
This is an appeal, on purel le!al "uestions, fro# a decision of the Court of $irst
%nstance of &ue'on Cit, Branch %(, declarin! the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro )antos,
entitled to the possession of the car in dispute.
The records before this Court disclose that so#eti#e in Ma, *+,+, Teodoro )antos
advertised in t-o #etropolitan papers the sale of his $.R/ $A%R0ANE ,11. %n the
afternoon of Ma 23, *+,+, a certain 0. /e /ios, clai#in! to be a nephe- of (icente
Marella, -ent to the )antos residence to ans-er the ad. 4o-ever, Teodoro )antos -as
out durin! this call and onl the latter5s son, %rineo )antos, received and tal6ed -ith /e
/ios. The latter told the oun! )antos that he had co#e in behalf of his uncle, (icente
Marella, -ho -as interested to bu the advertised car.
.n bein! infor#ed of the above, Teodoro )antos instructed his son to see the said
(icente Marella the follo-in! da at his !iven address7 *892 Crisosto#o )treet,
)a#paloc, Manila. And so, in the #ornin! of Ma 2+, *+,+, %rineo )antos -ent to the
above address. At this #eetin!, Marella a!reed to bu the car for P*9,:11.11 on the
understandin! that the price -ould be paid onl after the car had been re!istered in his
na#e.
%rineo )antos then fetched his father -ho, to!ether -ith 0. /e /ios, -ent to the office
of a certain Att. ;ose Padolina -here the deed of the sale for the car -as e<ecuted in
Marella5s favor. The parties to the contract thereafter proceeded to the Motor (ehicles
.ffice in &ue'on Cit -here the re!istration of the car in Marella5s na#e -as effected.
=p to this sta!e of the transaction, the purchased price had not been paid.
$ro# the Motor (ehicles .ffice, Teodoro )antos returned to his house. 4e !ave the
re!istration papers and a cop of the deed of sale to his son, %rineo, and instructed hi#
not to part -ith the# until Marella shall have !iven the full pa#ent for the car. %rineo
)antos and 0. /e /ios then proceeded to *892 Crisosto#o )treet, )a#paloc, Manila
-here the for#er de#anded the pa#ent fro# (icente Marella. Marella said that the
a#ount he had on hand then -as short b so#e P2,111.11 and be!!ed off to be
allo-ed to secure the shorta!e fro# a sister supposedl livin! so#e-here on
A'carra!a )treet, also in Manila. Thereafter, he ordered 0. /e /ios to !o to the said
sister and su!!ested that %rineo )antos !o -ith hi#. At the sa#e ti#e, he re"uested
the re!istration papers and the deed of sale fro# %rineo )antos on the prete<t that he
-ould li6e to sho- the# to his la-er. Trustin! the !ood faith of Marella, %rineo handed
over the sa#e to the latter and thereupon, in the co#pan of 0. /e /ios and another
unidentified person, proceeded to the alle!ed house of Marella5s sister.
At a place on A'carra!a, %rineo )antos and 0. /e /ios ali!hted fro# the car and
entered a house -hile their unidentified co#panion re#ained in the car. .nce inside,
0. /e /ios as6ed %rineo )antos to -ait at the sala -hile he -ent inside a roo#. That
-as the last that %rineo sa- of hi#. $or, after a considerable len!th of ti#e -aitin! in
vain for /e /ios to return, %rineo -ent do-n to discover that neither the car nor their
unidentified co#panion -as there an#ore. >oin! bac6 to the house, he in"uired fro#
a -o#an he sa- for 0. /e /ios and he -as told that no such na#e lived or -as even
6no-n therein. ?hereupon, %rineo )antos rushed to *892 Crisosto#o to see Marella.
4e found the house closed and Marella !one. $inall, he reported the #atter to his
father -ho pro#ptl advised the police authorities.
That ver sa#e da, or on the afternoon of Ma 2+, *+,+ (icente Marella -as able to
sell the car in "uestion to the plaintiff-appellant herein, ;ose B. A'nar, for P*,,111.11.
%nsofar as the above incidents are concerned, -e are bound b the factual findin! of
the trial court that ;ose B. A'nar ac"uired the said car fro# (icente Marella in !ood
faith, for a valuable consideration and -ithout notice of the defect appertainin! to the
vendor5s title.
?hile the car in "uestion -as thus in the possession of ;ose B. A'nar and -hile he
-as attendin! to its re!istration in his na#e, a!ents of the Philippine Constabular
sei'ed and confiscated the sa#e in conse"uence of the report to the# b Teodoro
)antos that the said car -as unla-full ta6en fro# hi#.
%n due ti#e, ;ose B. A'nar filed a co#plaint for replevin a!ainst Captain Rafael
@apdian!co, the head of the Philippine Constabular unit -hich sei'ed the car in
"uestion Clai#in! o-nership of the vehicle, he praed for its deliver to hi#. %n the
course of the liti!ation, ho-ever, Teodoro )antos #oved and -as allo-ed to intervene
b the lo-er court.
At the end of the trial, the lo-er court rendered a decision a-ardin! the disputed #otor
vehicle to the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro )antos. %n brief, it ruled that Teodoro
)antos had been unla-full deprived of his personal propert b (icente Marella, fro#
-ho# the plaintiff-appellant traced his ri!ht. Conse"uentl, althou!h the plaintiff-
appellant ac"uired the car in !ood faith and for a valuable consideration fro# (icente
Marella, the said decision concluded, still the intervenor-appellee -as entitled to its
recover on the #andate of Article ,,+ of the Ne- Civil Code -hich provides7
1
ART. ,,+. The possession of #ovable propert ac"uired in !ood faith is
e"uivalent to title. Nevertheless, one -ho lost an #ovable or has been
unla-full deprived thereof, #a recover it fro# the person in possession of
the sa#e.
%f the possessor of a #ovable lost or of -hich the o-ner has been unla-full
deprived, has ac"uired it in !ood faith at a public sale, the o-ner cannot
obtain its return -ithout rei#bursin! the price paid therefor.
$ro# this decision, ;ose B. A'nar appeals.
The issue at bar is one and si#ple, to -it7 Bet-een Teodoro )antos and the plaintiff-
appellant, ;ose B. A'nar, -ho has a better ri!ht to the possession of the disputed
auto#obileA
?e find for the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro )antos.
The plaintiff-appellant accepts that the car in "uestion ori!inall belon!ed to and -as
o-ned b the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro )antos, and that the latter -as unla-full
deprived of the sa#e b (icente Marella. 4o-ever, the appellant contends that upon
the facts of this case, the applicable provision of the Civil Code is Article *,18 and not
Article ,,+ as -as held b the decision under revie-. Article *,18 provides7
ART. *,18. ?here the seller of !oods has a voidable title thereto, but his, title
has not been voided at the ti#e of the sale, the buer ac"uires a !ood title to
the !oods, provided he bus the# in !ood faith, for value, and -ithout notice
of the seller5s defect of title.
The contention is clearl un#eritorious. =nder the afore"uoted provision, it is essential
that the seller should have a voidable title at least. %t is ver clearl inapplicable -here,
as in this case, the seller had no title at all.
(icente Marella did not have an title to the propert under liti!ation because the sa#e
-as never delivered to hi#. 4e sou!ht o-nership or ac"uisition of it b virtue of the
contract. (icente Marella could have ac"uired o-nership or title to the subBect #atter
thereof onl b the deliver or tradition of the car to hi#.
=nder Article :*2 of the Civil Code, Co-nership and other real ri!hts over propert are
ac"uired and trans#itted b la-, b donation, b testate and intestate succession, and
in conse"uence of certain contracts, b tradition.C As interpreted b this Court in a host
of cases, b this provision, o-nership is not transferred b contract #erel but b
tradition or deliver. Contracts onl constitute titles or ri!hts to the transfer or
ac"uisition of o-nership, -hile deliver or tradition is the #ode of acco#plishin! the
sa#e D>on'ales v. RoBas, *8 Phil. ,*; .ceBo, Pere' and Co. v. %nternational Ban6, E:
Phil. 8E*, $idelit and /eposit Co. v. ?ilson, 3 Phil. ,*; Fuen'le G )treiff v. ?ac6e G
Chandler, *9 Phil. 8*1; Easton v. /ia' Co., E2 Phil. *31H.
$or the le!al ac"uisition and transfer of o-nership and other propert ri!hts,
the thin! transferred #ust be delivered, inas#uch as, accordin! to settled
Burisprudence, the tradition of the thin! is a necessar and indispensable
re"uisite in the ac"uisition of said o-nership b virtue of contract. D?alter
0aston v. E. /ia' G Co. G the Provincial )heriff of Alba, supra.H
)o lon! as propert is not delivered, the o-nership over it is not transferred
b contract #erel but b deliver. Contracts onl constitute titles or ri!hts to
the transfer or ac"uisition of o-nership, -hile deliver or tradition is the
#ethod of acco#plishin! the sa#e, the title and the #ethod of ac"uirin! it
bein! different in our la-. D>on'ales v. Ro<as, *8 Phil. ,*H
%n the case on hand, the car in "uestion -as never delivered to the vendee b the
vendor as to co#plete or consu##ate the transfer of o-nership b virtue of the
contract. %t should be recalled that -hile there -as indeed a contract of sale bet-een
(icente Marella and Teodoro )antos, the for#er, as vendee, too6 possession of the
subBect #atter thereof b stealin! the sa#e -hile it -as in the custod of the latter5s
son.
There is no ade"uate evidence on record as to -hether %rineo )antos voluntaril
delivered the 6e to the car to the unidentified person -ho -ent -ith hi# and 0. /e
/ios to the place on A'carra!a -here a sister of Marella alle!edl lived. But even if
%rineo )antos did, it -as not the deliver conte#plated b Article :*2 of the Civil Code.
$or then, it -ould be indisputable that he turned it over to the unidentified co#panion
onl so that he #a drive %rineo )antos and /e /ios to the said place on A'carra!a
and not to vest the title to the said vehicle to hi# as a!ent of (icente Marella. Article
:*2 above conte#plates that the act be coupled -ith the intent of deliverin! the thin!.
D*1 Manresa *E2H
The lo-er court -as correct in applin! Article ,,+ of the Civil Code to the case at bar,
for under it, the rule is to the effect that if the o-ner has lost a thin!, or if he has been
unla-full deprived of it, he has a ri!ht to recover it, not onl fro# the finder, thief or
robber, but also fro# third persons -ho #a have ac"uired it in !ood faith fro# such
finder, thief or robber. The said article establishes t-o e<ceptions to the !eneral rule of
irrevindicabilit, to -it, -hen the o-ner D*H has lost the thin!, or D2H has been unla-full
deprived thereof. %n these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thin! as a!ainst the
o-ner, -ho #a recover it -ithout pain! an inde#nit, e<cept -hen the possessor
ac"uired it in a public sale. D/el Rosario v. 0ucena, 3 Phil. ,E,; (arela v. $innic6, +
Phil. 932; (arela v. Matute, + Phil. 9:+; Arenas v. Ra#undo, *+ Phil. 98. #olentino, id.,
(ol. %%, p. 28*.H
%n the case of $ruz ". %ahati, et al., ,2 ..>. E1,E this Court has alread ruled
that I
=nder Article ,,+ of the ne- Civil Code, a person ille!all deprived of an
#ovable #a recover it fro# the person in possession of the sa#e and the
onl defense the latter #a have is if he has ac"uired it in !ood faith at a
public sale, in -hich case, the o-ner cannot obtain its return -ithout
2
rei#bursin! the price paid therefor. %n the present case, plaintiff has been
ille!all deprived of his car throu!h the in!enious sche#e of defendant B to
enable the latter to dispose of it as if he -ere the o-ner thereof. Plaintiff,
therefore, can still recover possession of the car even if it is in the possession
of a third part -ho had ac"uired it in !ood faith fro# defendant B. The
#a<i# that Cno #an can transfer to another a better title than he had hi#selfC
obtains in the civil as -ell as in the co##on la-. D=.). v. )otelo, 23 Phil. *9:H
$inall, the plaintiff-appellant here contends that inas#uch as it -as the intervenor-
appellee -ho had caused the fraud to be perpetrated b his #isplaced confidence on
(icente Marella, he, the intervenor-appellee, should be #ade to suffer the
conse"uences arisin! therefro#, follo-in! the e"uitable principle to that effect. )uffice
it to sa in this re!ard that the ri!ht of the o-ner to recover personal propert ac"uired
in !ood faith b another, is based on his bein! dispossessed -ithout his consent. The
co##on la- principle that -here one of t-o innocent persons #ust suffer b a fraud
perpetrated b another, the la- i#poses the loss upon the part -ho, b his #isplaced
confidence, has enabled the fraud to be co##itted, cannot be applied in a case -hich
is covered b an e<press provision of the ne- Civil Code, specificall Article ,,+.
Bet-een a co##on la- principle and a statutor provision, the latter #ust prevail in
this Burisdiction. DCru' v. Pahati, supraH
=P.N A00 T4E $.RE>.%N>, the instant appeal is hereb dis#issed and the
decision of the lo-er court affir#ed in full. Costs a!ainst the appellant.
3

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen