JOSE AZNAR vs RAFAEL YAPDIANGCO and TEODORO where, as in this case, the seller had no title at all.
the seller had no title at all. Vicente Marella
SANTOS
G.R. No. L-18536 | March 31, 1965 | J. Regala
Characters:
Teodoro Santos – original vendor/vendor 1
Irineo Santos – son of Teodoro
Vicente Marella – vendee 1/ vendor 2
L. De Dios – nephew of Vicente
Jose Aznar – vendee 2
Rafael Yapdiangco – Philippine Constabulary officer
FACTS:
In May, 1959, Teodoro Santos advertised in two metropolitan papers
the sale of his FORD FAIRLANE 500. In the afternoon of May 28,
1959, L. De Dios, claiming to be a nephew of Vicente Marella, went
to the Santos residence to answer the ad. However, only Teodoro’s
son, Irineo Santos, received and talked with De Dios because
Teodoro was out. De Dios told Irineo that he had come in behalf of
his uncle, Vicente Marella, who was interested to buy the advertised
car.
Teodoro later instructed Irineo to visit Marella’s house to confirm the
sale. Marella agreed to purchase the car for P14,700.00 but he
explained that he would only pay after the car has been registered in
his name.
A certain Atty. Jose Padolina executed the deed of the sale for the car
in Marella's favor. The registration of the car was then effected.
However, the purchase price has not been paid up to the date of the
decision of the case.
Teodoro entrusted the registration papers and a copy of the deed of
sale to Irineo and told him to hold on to it until the purchase price had
been paid. Irineo then proceeded to demand the purchase price from
Marella who said he was short of P2,000 of the purchase price and
asked if he could borrow such amount from his sister in another
street. However, he asked if he could keep the documents so that he
could show them to his lawyer. Believing in Marella’s good faith,
Irineo turned over the documents.
Irineo and De Dios then went to the sister’s house and De Dios told
Irineo to wait in the sala while he went inside a room. After a
considerable amount of time waiting, Irineo went to check on the car
that they took and found that this was no longer there and upon
returning to the house of the sister, he learned that no one knew of
any L. De Dios in that area. Upon returning to Marella’s house, the
house was already closed and Marella was gone!!!! :o The Santos
father and son then reported this to the police authorities.
That very same day (May 29, 1959), it was learned that Marella sold
the car to plaintiff, Jose Aznar for P15,000. This sale appeared to be
made in good faith and without any knowledge in the defect of the
vendor’s title. The Philippine Constabulary then seized the car while
it was in his possession because of the complaint given by Santos.
Aznar filed a complaint for replevin against the Philippine
Constabulary head, Yapdiangco, because he claimed ownership over
the car and he believed he unlawfully lost possession of it. Santos
was also allowed to intervene in the case. The lower court decided in
favor of Santos and justified this through Art. 559.
ISSUE: Who has a better right of possession over the car? – Teodoro
Santos
HELD:
Aznar claims that the proper provision to be applied in this situation
is Art. 1506. However, it is essential in this article that the seller
should have a voidable title at least. It is very clearly inapplicable
did not have any title to the property under litigation because the
same was never delivered to him. He sought ownership or acquisition
of it by virtue of the contract. Vicente Marella could have acquired
ownership or title to the subject matter thereof only by the delivery or
tradition of the car to him.
As interpreted by this Court in a host of cases, by this provision,
ownership is not transferred by contract merely but by tradition or
delivery. Contracts only constitute titles or rights to the transfer or
acquisition of ownership, while delivery or tradition is the mode of
accomplishing the same
In the case on hand, the car in question was never delivered to the
vendee by the vendor as to complete or consummate the transfer of
ownership by virtue of the contract. It should be recalled that while
there was indeed a contract of sale between Vicente Marella and
Teodoro Santos, the former, as vendee, took possession of the subject
matter thereof by stealing the same while it was in the custody of the
latter's son.
The lower court was correct in applying Article 559 of the Civil Code
to the case at bar, for under it, 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 the 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 two exceptions to the general rule of irrevindicability,
to wit, 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, except when the possessor acquired it in a
public sale.
A person illegally deprived of any movable may recover it from the
person in possession of the same and the only defense the latter may
have is if he has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, in which
case, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price
paid therefor. In the present case, plaintiff has been illegally deprived
of his car through the ingenious scheme of defendant B to enable the
latter to dispose of it as if he were the owner thereof. Plaintiff,
therefore, can still recover possession of the car even if it is in the
possession of a third party who had acquired it in good faith from
defendant B. The maxim that "no man can transfer to another a
better title than he had himself" obtains in the civil as well as in
the common law.
A common law principle which leaves the first vendor to suffer the
consequences of his misplaced confidence does not apply when a
specific Civil Code provision already states the opposite.