Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1


Case No. 29 Case No. 30

Title as to Movable Properties Title as to Movable Properties
Tagatac v. Jimenez EDCA Publishing & Distributing Corporation v. Santos

FACTS: Tagatac sold her car to Feist, who sold it to Sanchez, who sold it to Jimenez, who bought it in FACTS: EDCA Publishing sold 406 books to a certain Professor Jose Cruz who ordered these through
good faith and for value. When the payment check issued to Tagatac by Feist was dishonored. Tagatac telephone, which was agreed to be payable on delivery. An impostor identifying himself as a professor
sued to recover the vehicle from Jimenez on the ground that she had been unlawfully deprived of it obtained the delivery of books from EDCA and for which he issued a check that subsequently
by reason of Feist's deception. Subsequently, Feist was convicted for Estafa. bounced. The impostor sold the books to Santos, who bought them in good faith and for value.

ISSUE: Whether or not Tagatac can revert the title of thing sold to her. ISSUE: Whether or not Santos’ possession of books acquired in good faith is equivalent to title.

RULING: NO. The Court held that Tagatac cannot be deemed to have been lawfully deprived of the RULING: YES. Santos do not have to establish his ownership over the books because his possession in
vehicle since the failure of Feist to pay the purchase price of the vehicle or the issuance of a bad check good faith is equivalent to title. EDCA was not unlawfully deprived of the books because non-payment
for its price did not or could not affect the validity of the transfer of title of Jimenez who acquired of the price by the impostor, although amounting to fraud, did not constitute unlawful deprivation but
the car in good faith. merely vitiation of consent as to make the contract voidable; but so long as the contract has not been
annulled, it remained valid, and the subsequent sale and delivery to the books to Santos effectively
At the most, it would give Tagatac a right to rescind the contract, but the title to the thing sold would transferred ownership to Santos.
not revert to the seller until the sale has been set aside by a competent court . Until that is done, the
rights of Jimenez who is in good faith, acquired before resolution of the contract are entitled to Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal
protection. prosecution in the case of bouncing checks.

Deceit or Fraud do not render the contract void but merely voidable, when delivery was effected
pursuant to such voidable contract, tradition effectively and legally transferred ownership to the
buyer, even though he was a deceitful person.