EDCA Publishing vs. Spouses Santos.

Facts:
A man introducing himself as Professor Jose Cruz, placed an order by
telephone with EDCA for 406 books, payable on delivery. EDCA prepared the
corresponding invoice and delivered the books as ordered, for which Cruz issued a
personal check covering the purchase price of P8,995.65.
Cruz sold 120 of the books to respondent Leonor Santos who, after verifying
the sellers ownership from the invoice he showed her, paid him P1, 700.00.
Cruz ordered a 2nd set of books from EDCA before the clearance of the first
check. EDCA, becoming suspicious, called dlsu to confirm if Cruz is a Dean in that
green school in taft. EDCA found out that Cruz is not a Dean nor a professor in said
school in taft. EDCA also found out that Cruz no longer owns an account in the
bank where he drew the check from.
EDCA went to the police and the police set up a trap for Cruz. Cruz got
arrested and divulged that his real name is Tomas de la Pea and that he sold 120
books to the Santoses. On that same night, police forced their way into the Santos
Bookstore and threatened Leonor Santos with prosecution for buying stolen
property. The police seized the 120 books without warrant and turned them over to
EDCA.
Leonor Santos sued for recovery of the books. A writ of preliminary
attachment was issued and EDCA surrendered the books to the Santoses.
EDCA contends that private respondents have not established their
ownership of the disputed books because they have not even produced a receipt to
prove they had bought the stock.
Article 559 the possession of movable property acquired in good faith is
equivalent to a title, thus dispensing with further proof.
Leonor Santos is a possessor in good faith. She even ascertained the
ownership of Cruz/de la Pea of the books by checking the invoice EDCA gave to
Cruz which she certainly was not obligated to do.
Issue: W/N petitioner was unlawfully deprived of the books because the check
issued by the impostor in payment therefor was dishonored.
Held: No.
EDCA contends that there was no transference of ownership from them to
Cruz.
Art.1477 and Art. 1488 provide for the rule that in a contract of sale,
ownership shall pass from the vendor to the vendee upon actual/constructive
delivery even if purchase price hasnt been given yet unless there is a stipulation to
the contrary.
Hence, Cruz became the rightful owner of the books.
In case of non-payment, the valid remedies are: right to rescission, right to
demand payment or right to sue in case of bouncing checks.
The unlawful deprivation EDCA claims is not within the scope of Art 559 which
states: Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully
deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same.
He was not unlawfully deprived as stated in Art 559 because in fact, by
virtue of the contracts of sale and deliverance, there was a valid transference of

ownership to Cruz. Cruz could have done whatever he wanted with the books.
Cruzs non-payment did not bring this case under the purview of Art 559.
EDCAs remedy is not against Leonor but against Cruz/de la Pea.