ARTICLE 1164; RIGHT OF CREDITOR TO THE FRUITS (De Leon, p.

35-36)

Fidelity & Dep Co of Maryland vs. Wilson, et al. G.R. No. 2684 March 15, 1907

A document transfers to a person certain funds in the possession of another but there is no actual
delivery of said funds.

Facts: For the security of the Government, X Company (and another company) became a surety on the
official bond of W, an employee of the Government for the sum of $15,000.00. W defaulted in the
amount of $8,900.00 and X Company paid the Government the sum of $14,462.00. When W was
apprehended, he had on his person $750.00 which amount was turned over to B, the Insular Treasurer.
Later, W signed a document transferring to T all his rights to said $785.00 for professional
services rendered by the latter as attorney’s fee. B was duly notifi ed of the transfer.
X filed an action against W to recover the sum of $785.00 in partial payment of the amount paid
by X to the Government. T fi led a complaint in intervention and claimed the money as his.

Issue: On the basis of these facts, will the complaint of T prosper?

Held: No. (1) Ownership was not acquired by T. — The delivery of a thing constitutes a necessary and
indispensable requisite for the purpose of acquiring the ownership of the same by virtue of a contract.
The transfer by itself, and afterwards the notification to B, did not produce the effect of delivery to T of
the funds so transferred. (see Arts. 1497, 1498, 1501.) To have this effect, it would have been necessary
that the delivery of the funds had been made directly to T. Therefore, by reason of the nondelivery,
T did not acquire the ownership of the property transferred to him by W.
(2) Mere personal right was acquired by T. — It is only the jus ad rem, and not the jus in re, that
was acquired by T by virtue of the transfer made by the consent of the transferor and the transferee but
not consummated by the delivery which never came to pass and which delivery was the object of such
transfer. (Fidelity & Deposit Co. vs. Wilson, 8 Phil. 51 [1907]; see also Cruzado vs. Bustos, 34 Phil. 17
[1915].)