100%(1)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (1 Abstimmung)
615 Ansichten2 Seiten
A woman bought a car for $4,500 in the u.s. And brought it to the Philippines. Warner Feist, who pretended to be a wealthy man, offered to buy the car for P15,000. Tagatac notified the law enforcement agencies of the estafa committed by Feist. But the latter was not apprehended and the car disappeared.
A woman bought a car for $4,500 in the u.s. And brought it to the Philippines. Warner Feist, who pretended to be a wealthy man, offered to buy the car for P15,000. Tagatac notified the law enforcement agencies of the estafa committed by Feist. But the latter was not apprehended and the car disappeared.
A woman bought a car for $4,500 in the u.s. And brought it to the Philippines. Warner Feist, who pretended to be a wealthy man, offered to buy the car for P15,000. Tagatac notified the law enforcement agencies of the estafa committed by Feist. But the latter was not apprehended and the car disappeared.
considering that they had a contract of sale (note: but
such sale is voidable for the fraud and deceit by Feist). The disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act does NOT apply in this case because the car was not stolen from Tagatac, and Jimenez came into possession of the car two months after Feist swindled Tagatac.
Trinidad Tagatac bought a car for $4,500 in the
US. After 7 months, she brought the car to the Philippines.
Warner Feist, who pretended to be a wealthy
man, offered to buy Trinidads car for P15,000, and Tagatac was amenable to the idea. Hnece, a deed of sale was exceuted.
Jimenez was a purchaser in good faith for he was not
aware of any flaw invalidating the title from the seller of the car
Feist paid by means of a postdated check, and
the car was delivered to Feist. However, PNB refused to honor the checks and told her that Feist had no account in said bank.
Tagatac notified the law enforcement agencies
of the estafa committed by Feist, but the latter was not apprehended and the car disappeared.
In addition, when Jimenez acquired the car, he had no
knowledge of any flaw in the title of the person from whom he acquired it. It was only later that he became fully aware that there were some questions regarding the car, when he filed a petition to dissolve Tagatacs search warrant which had as its subject the car in question.
Meanwhile, Feist managed succeeded in having
the cars registration certificate (RC) transferred in his name. He sold the car to Sanchez, who was able to transfer the registration certificate to his name.
Sanchez then offered to sell the car to defendant
Liberato Jimenez, who bought the car for P10,000 after investigating in the Motor Vehicles Office.
Tagatac discovered that the car was in California
Car Exchanges (place where Jimenez displayed the car for sale), so she demanded from the manager for the delivery of the car, but the latter refused.
Tagatac filed a suit for the recovery of the cars
possession, and the sheriff, pursuant to a warrant of seizure that Tagatac obtained, seized and impounded the car, but it was delivered back to Jimenez upon his filing of a counterbond. The lower court held that Jimenez had the right of ownership and possession over the car.
ISSUE: W/N Jimenez was a purchaser in good faith and
thus entitled to the ownership and possession of the car. YES HELD: It must be noted that Tagatac was not unlawfully deprived of his car In this case, there is a valid transmission of ownership from true owner [Tagatac] to the swindler [Feist],
The contract between Feist and Tagactac was a voidable
contract, it can be annulled or ratified . . . The fraud and deceit practiced by Warner L. Feist earmarks this sale as a voidable contract (Article 1390). Being a voidable contract, it is susceptible of either ratification or annulment. (If the contract is ratified, the action to annul it is extinguished -Article 1392) and the contract is cleansed from all its defects (Article 1396); if the contract is annulled, the contracting parties are restored to their respective situations before the contract and mutual restitution follows as a consequence (Article 1398). Being a voidable contract, it remains valid and binding until annulled However, as long as no action is taken by the party entitled, either that of annulment or of ratification, the contract of sale remains valid and binding. When plaintiff-appellant Trinidad C. Tagatac delivered the car to Feist by virtue of said voidable contract of sale, the title to the car passed to Feist. Of course, the title that Feist acquired was defective and voidable. 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 sellers defect of title.
EDCA PUBLISHING VS SPS. SANTOS
G.R. No. 80298, April 26, 1990 FACTS: On October 5, 1981, a person identifying himself as Prof. Jose Cruz ordered 406 books from EDCA Publishing. EDCA Subsequently prepared the corresponding invoice and delivered the books as ordered, for which Cruz issued a personal check covering the purchase price of said books. Subsequently on October 7, 1981, Cruz sold 120 of the books to Leonor Santos who, after verifying the sellers ownership from the invoice he showed her, paid him P1,700. Upon verification by EDCA, it was discovered that Cruz was not employed as professor by De La Salle College and that he had no more account or deposit with Phil. Amanah Bank, the bank where he allegedly drawn the payment check. Upon arrest of Cruz by the police, it was revealed that his real name was Tomas dela Pena and that there was a further sale of 120 books to Sps. Santos. EDCA, through the assistance of the police forced their way into the store of Sps. Santos and threatened Leonor with prosecution for buying stolen property. The 120 books were seized and were later turned over to EDCA. This resulted to Sps. Santos filing a case for recovery of the books after their demand for the return of the books was rejected. ISSUE: W/N EDCA may retrieve the books from Santos. NO (W/N EDCA has been unlawfully deprived of the books because the heck issued by Cruz in payment thereof was dishonored. NO.) HELD: EDCA argues that because Cruz, the impostor acquired no title to the books, the latter could not have validly transferred such to Sps. Santos. Its reason is that as the payment check bounced for lack of funds, there was a failure of consideration that nullified the contract of sale between it and Cruz. However, upon perusal of the provisions on the Law on Sales, a contract of sale is consensual and is perfected once agreement is reached between the parties on the subject matter and the consideration. As provided in Art. 1478- Ownership in the thing sold shall not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase only if there is a
stipulation to that effect. Otherwise, the rule is that such
ownership shall pass from the vendor to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if the purchase price has not yet been paid. Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal prosecution in the case of bouncing checks. But absent the stipulation above noted, delivery of the thing sold will effectively transfer ownership to the buyer who can in turn transfer it to another. Actual delivery of the books having been made, Cruz acquired ownership over the books which he could then validly transfer to the private respondents. The fact that he had not yet paid for them to EDCA was a matter between him and EDCA and did not impair the title acquired by the private respondents to the books. Leonor Santos took care to ascertain first that the books belonged to Cruz before she agreed to purchase them. The EDCA invoice Cruz showed her assured her that the books had been paid for on delivery. By contrast, EDCA was less than cautious in fact, too trusting in dealing with the impostor. Although it had never transacted with him before, it readily delivered the books he had ordered (by telephone) and as readily accepted his personal check in payment. It did not verify his identity although it was easy enough to do this. It did not wait to clear the check of this unknown drawer. Worse, it indicated in the sales invoice issued to him, by the printed terms thereon, that the books had been paid for on delivery, thereby vesting ownership in the buyer. Santos did not need to go beyond that invoice to satisfy herself that the books being offered for sale by Cruz actually belonged to him; yet she still did. Although the title of Cruz was presumed under Article 559 by his mere possession of the books, these being movable property, Leonor Santos nevertheless demanded more proof before deciding to buy them. NB: Law on Property Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same. If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.