Tagatac v.

Jimenez

TRINIDAD TAGATAC v. LIBERATO JIMENEZ

1957 / Ocampo / Appeal from CFI judgment

Trinidad Tagatac bought a car for $4,500 in the US, and seven months later, she
brought the car to the Philippines. When her friend Joseph Lee came to see her, he
was with one Warner Feist who posed as a wealthy man. Seeing that Tagatac seemed
to believe him, he offered to buy her car for P15,000, and Tagatac was amenable to
the idea. The deed of sale was made, Feist paid by means of a postdated check, and
the car was delivered to Feist. When Tagatac tried to encash the check, PNB refused
to honor it and told her that Feist had no account in said bank. Tagatac notified the
law enforcement agencies of the estafa committed on her by Feist, but he was not
apprehended and the car disappeared.

Meanwhile, Feist managed to have the private deed of sale notarized, so he

succeeded in having the car’s registration certificate [RC] transferred in his name. He
sold the car to Sanchez, who was able to transfer the RC to his name. He offered to
sell the car to defendant Liberato Jimenez, who bought the car for P10,000 after
investigating in the Motor Vehicles Office. Jimenez delivered the car to the California
Car Exchange so that it may be displayed for sale. Masalonga offered to sell the car
for Jimenez, so the car was transferred to the former, but when Masalonga failed to
sell it right away, he transferred it to Villanueva so he could sell it for Jimenez.
Tagatac discovered that the car was in California Car Exchange’s possession, so she
demanded from the manager for the delivery of the car, but the latter refused. The
RC was retransferred to Jimenez.

Tagatac filed a suit for the recovery of the car’s 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 counter-bond. The lower court held
that Jimenez had the right of ownership and possession over the car.

JIMENEZ IS A PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH; TAGATAC NOT ENTITLED TO

POSSESSION

RATIO

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. 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 Tagatac’s
search warrant which had as its subject the car in question.

Re: Tagatac’s allegation that the lower court ignored the judgment convicting Feist
of estafa, and that it erred in not declaring that restitution of the swindled property
must follow, SHE IS WRONG! The lower court noted that Feist was accused of estafa
because of the check and NOT because of the delivery of the car.

Her legal basis for the restitution of thing is RPC 104-51 . Now the question is WON
she has beenunlawfully deprived of her car. It seems like though, but it does not fall
under the scope of NCC 599. 2In this case, there is a valid transmission of ownership
from true owner [Tagatac] to the swindler [Feist], considering that they had a
contract of sale.

As long as no action is taken by the entitled party [annulment / ratification], the

contract of sale remains valid and binding. Feist acquired defective and voidable title,
but when he sold it to Sanchez, he conferred a good title on the latter. Jimenez
bought the car from Sanchez in good faith, for value, and without notice of any defect
in Sanchez’ title, so he acquired a good title to the car. Good title means an
indefeasible title to the car, even as against original owner Tagatac. As between two
innocent parties, the one whose acts made possible the injury must shoulder the
consequences thereof.

-------------------------

DE GARCIA V. COURT OF APPEALS/ GUEVARA- Buying Lost or Stolen Goods

(Art 559) One who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of any movable may
recover the same from the possessor except when the owner has been unlawfully
deprived of it and it has been obtained by the latter in good faith at a public sale
wherein the former needs to reimburse the latter of the price paid.

:. THE ONLY EXCEPTION is acquisition in good faith of the possession at a public sale.

FACTS:
Mrs. Guevara owned a pretty diamond ring with white gold mounting, 2.05 diamond-
solitaire, and 4 brills. Sometime in February 1952, the ring was stolen from her
house. Luckily, on October 1953 (barely a year after), she found it at a restaurant,
La Bulakena, on the finger of the restaurant owner, Consuelo De Garcia.

Guevara asked De Garcia where she bought it and explained to her how she had lost
it. When the ring was handed to her by De Garcia, it fitted her perfectly. The next
time around, she brought her husband and Rebullida, the person whom she bought
the ring from, to verify the identity of the ring. Rebullida examined the ring with the
aid of high power lens and his 30 years of experience. He concluded that it was the
very ring that he had sold to the Guevaras. After that, Guevara sent a written request
for the ring, but De Garcia did not deliver it. When the sheriff tries to serve a writ of
seizure, De Garica likewise refused to deliver the ring.

According to De Garcia, she bought the ring from her kumare who got it from another
Miss who in turn got it from the owner, a certain Aling Petring. Aling Petring however,
was nowhere to be found. She boarded three months at the first buyer’s house but
left a week after her landlady bought the ring. The first buyer did not even know
Aling Petring’s last name nor her forwarding address.
De Garcia claims to be a holder in good faith and for value. She says her possession
is equivalent to title.

[Note: There was a discrepancy as to the weight of the ring at the time it was
purchased and at the time it was found, but this was because De Guevara substituted
the diamond-solitaire with a heavier stone.]
The lower court both ruled in favor of the buyer and CA reversed in favor of the
owner, Guevara. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Who has a better right?

RULING: Guevara (owner)

Article Article 559 again, applies. Remember that the article establishes two
exceptions to the general rule of irrevindicability: when the owner (1) has lost the
thing, or (2) has been unlawfully deprived thereof. In these cases, the possessor
cannot retain the thing as against the owner, who may recover it without paying any
indemnity. THE ONLY EXCEPTION is acquisition in good faith of the possession at a
public sale.

There is no merit in the contention that De Garcia’s possession is in good faith,

equivalent to title, sufficed to defeat the owner’s claim. Possession in good faith does
not really amount to title for the reason that there is a period for acquisitive
prescription for movable through “uninterrupted possession” of 4 years.

The title of the possessor in good faith is not that of ownership, but is merely a
presumptive title sufficient to serve as a basis for acquisitive prescription. This, one
who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it
from the person in possession of the same.
Besides, De Garcia’s “title”, if any, was weak. Her source, Aling Petring, was dubious.
She did not make a comment when Rebullida examined the ring nor did she answer
Guevara’s letter asserting ownership of it. Her testimony was weak!

EDCA PUBLISHING v. SANTOS

Possession of movable property acquired in GF is equivalent to title. There is no need

to produce a receipt.

FACTS:

EDCA Publishing sold 406 books to a certain Professor Jose Cruz who ordered these
by telephone, which was agreed to be payable on delivery. The books were
subsequently delivered to him with the corresponding invoice, and he paid with a
personal check.

Cruz then sold the 120 of the books to Leonor Santos who asked for verification, and
was then showed the invoice for the books.

EDCA became suspicious when Cruz ordered another set of books even before his
check cleared. Upon investigation, EDCA found that he wasn’t the person he claimed
to be (Dean in DLSU). EDCA had the police capture Cruz, as well as seize the books
from Santos. Santos demanded the return of the books.

RTC granted the writ of preliminary attachment.

Subsequent dishonor of a check, which did not render the contract of sale void does
not amount to unlawfuldeprivation of property. (There was a perfected contract of
sale so the proper remedy is specific performance)

ISSUE:

Whether or not the owner was unlawfully deprived of the property?

HELD: No.

Santos was a good faith buyer after taking steps to verify the identity of the seller.
When she was showed the invoice, she reasonably believed that he was a legitimate
seller.

With regard to unlawful deprivation, EDCA was not unlawfully deprived of the
property by mere failure of consideration. There was already a perfected contract of
sale. Proof was even substantiated when EDCA gave the invoice as proof of payment
upon delivery of the books. This did not amount to unlawful taking, because by the
delivery of EDCA to Cruz, ownership of the books already transferred to him.

AZNAR V.YAPDIANGCO

13 SCRA 486

FACTS:

Theodoro Santos advertised in the newspapers the sale of his Ford Fairlane 500. After
the advertisement, a certain de Dios, claiming to be the nephew of Marella, went to
the residence of Santos and expressing his uncle’s intent to purchase the car. Since
Santos wasn't around, it was Irineo who talked with de Dios. On being informed,
Santos advised his son to see
Marella, which the son did. Marella expressed his intention to purchase the car. A
deed of sale was prepared and Irineo was instructed by his father not to part with
the deed and the car without receiving the purchase price from Marella. When irineo
and de Dios arrived at the residence of Marella, the latter averred that his money
was short and had to borrow from his sister. He then instructed de Dios and Irineo
to go the supposed house of the sister to obtain the money with an unidentified
person. He also asked Irineo to leave the deed to have his lawyer see it. Relying on
the good faith of Marella, Irineo did as requested. Upon arriving at the house of
Marella’s supposed to be sister, de Dios and the unidentified person then disappeared
together with the car. This prompted Santos to report the incident to the authorities.
Thereafter, Marella was able to sell the land to Aznar. And while in possession of the
car, police authorities confiscated the same. This prompted Aznar to file an action for
replevin.

HELD:

Marella never had title to the car as the car wasn't ever delivered to him. While there
was a deed of sale in his favor, he was only able to obtain possession of the car since
he stole it from Santos. The applicable law is Article 559. The rule is to the effect that
if the owner has lost a thing, or if he has been unlawfully deprived of it, he has a
right to recover it, not only from its finder, thief or robber, but also from third persons
who may have acquired it in good faith from such finder, thief or
robber. The said article establishes 2 exceptions to the general rule of
irrevindicabilty—to wit, the owner has lost the thing or has been unlawfully deprived
thereof. In these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as against the owner
who may recover it without paying any indemnity, except when the possessor
acquired it in a public sale. Furthermore, the common law principle that where one
of two innocent persons must suffer a fraud perpetrated by another, the law imposes
the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enable the fraud to be
committed, cannot be applied in this case, which is covered by an express provision
of law.