You are on page 1of 2

RIVERA v ONG

G.R. No. 11176 | December 21, 1917


Street, J. | Protacio – Group 3

Plaintiff-Appellant: Marciano Rivera


Defendant-Appellee: Ong Che

SUMMARY
Rivera buys from a yard sale but doesn’t take it home with him. Ong then buys the same things,
but this time takes it home. There was obviously a double sale. Supreme Court sides with Ong
since he was a buyer in good faith.

FACTS (super short case)


- The house of Lichauco had a yard sale for certain old machinery and boilers
o Deposited and exposed for sale in a yard at Tanday, Manila
- Plaintiff Marciano Rivera allegedly purchased some of the old material for the price of
P5.50, receiving a receipt from Cresanto Lichauco showing the purchase
o The things bought were: two complete steam-boilers with chimneys, 1 steam
motor, 1 pair of twin rice hullers complete, and a feeding pump for boilers
- Rivera did not take possession of the property when he bought it so it remained in the
same place
- A month after, Ong Che bought a lot of iron, machinery, and junk for the sum of P1,100.
o He took immediate possession of the things he bought
- When Marciano Rivera went to take possession of what he bought, he found that many
of the accessory and auxiliary parts of the boilers, motor, and rice mill were wanting
o It was held by defendant, Ong Che, and claimed by him as the owner
- Marciano instituted this present action to recover the articles in question
- CFI Manila rendered judgment in favor of defendant, hence this case.

ISSUE
W/N Marciano Rivera is the owner of the articles that were subsequently bought by Ong Che. –
NO

RATIO
- Defendant was a purchaser in good faith, and he acquired possession by virtue of his
purchase
- Ong Che has better title than the first purchase, who has never had possession at all
- Conflict in testimony as to who the original owner is (not important)
o Crisanto Lichauco, who sold to Rivera, was not a member of the house of
Lichauco
o Crisanto testified that the property he sold was property of Galo Lichauco, one of
the members of the establishment
o But the Court doubts the correctness of this statement because evidence by
defendant tends to how that things acquitted by him were bought from Faustino
Lichauco
- Nonetheless, even if the property did belong to Galo Lichauco, the house of Lichauco
still had authority to sell it
o Where two different agents of the same owner negotiated sales to two different
purchasers, the second purchaser having acquired possession first must be
declared the true owner
o It was merely a mistake of selling something that had already been sold
- It was also incumbent upon plaintiff to prove title in himself, against the defendant, by a
preponderance of evidence
o He can’t just recover merely on the weakness of defendant’s title
o Rivera failed to prove title in himself
- Defendant had, in his favor, the fact that he was a purchaser in good faith and had
acquired lawful possession
- There is a presumption arising from such possession that he was the owner.