24. NOEL M. ODRADA, PETITIONERS, V.

VIRGILIO LAZARO AND GEORGE ASENIERO

RESPONDENT.

Nature of Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

Facts: Petitioner Odrada alleges that: he is the registered owner of a black Range Rover which he bought
from Basa, the previous registered owner of the same; he learned that respondent Aseniero, claiming to
be the owner of the vehicle, had reported to the Anti-Carnapping Unit of the Philippine National Police
Eastern Police District (PNP-EPD-ANCAR) that the said motor vehicle had been stolen.

On the other hand, respondents allege that: Rosmarino acquired the vehicle from Eagle Ridge as
payment for the services he rendered to the latter; Eagle Ridge made arrangements with Transmix
Builders and Construction (Transmix) to give the said vehicle to Rosmarino, who in turn placed it on
display at Kotse Pilipinas; through Pueo, manager of Kotse Pilipinas, Aseniero was able to buy the
vehicle; Rosmarino requested Transmix to transfer the ownership of the vehicle directly to Aseniero;
Pueo offered to take the vehicle for registration and after getting the vehicle brought the car to Tan, to
serve as collateral for the loan the former obtained from the latter; Aseniero tried to call Pueo but the
latter could no longer be reached and was not in his office; Aseniero went to the Land Transportation
Office (LTO) to ask for a hold order where he found that the vehicle was already registered in Odrada's
name; he also discovered that it was sold by Transmix to Basa who eventually sold the same to Odrada;
after confronting Transmix, the latter executed a Deed of Confirmation of Sale in Aseniero's favor
attesting to the fact that the vehicle was only sold to him.

The RTC ruled in favor respondents. It found that respondents were able to prove that Aseniero bought
the Range Rover from Transmix through Pueo. It highlighted that Transmix executed a Deed of
Confirmation of Sale acknowledging that it had sold the said motor vehicle to Aseniero. It ordered to pay
damages. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but modified the amount of moral and exemplary
damages.

Issue: 1. Whether or not Aseniero is the lawful owner of the vehicle

2. Whether or not Orada is liable for moral and exemplary damages

Held: 1. Yes. Aseniero is the lawful owner of the motor vehicle. While Odrada may have presented a
notarized Deed of Sale between Basa and Transmix, it is of little value in proving that a sale had occurred
considering that none of the parties there testified in court and identified the said document.

Even assuming that respondents failed to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to the Deed
of Sale between Basa and Transmix, ownership would still rest with Aseniero. Such scenario would
amount to double sale. The rule on double sale is provided in Article 1544, Civil Code.

The Deed of Sale between Basa and Transmix was executed on September 4, 2003. On the other hand,
the Deed of Sale between Transmix and Aseniero was executed on November 5, 2003. While the Deed
of Sale between Basa and Transmix bore an earlier date, there is no evidence when Basa had actually
possessed the vehicle. Basa never appeared in court to testify on the circumstances of the purchase. The
execution of the deed alone did not transfer the ownership of the vehicle from Transmix to Basa
because ownership over movable property is transferred by delivery and not merely by contract.
Further, there is no evidence to show that Aseniero was aware of the September 4, 2003 Deed of Sale
between Basa and Transmix. As such, it was Aseniero who first possessed the vehicle in good faith. Since
Basa did not acquire ownership over the vehicle, he did not transmit any rights when he sold the same
to Odrada. This is in keeping with the principle that one cannot give what one does not have - nemo dat
quod non habet.

2. No. In order for moral damages to be awarded, the following circumstances must concur: (1) there is
an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) there is a
culpable act or omission factually established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the
proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages is predicated on
any of the cases stated in Article 2219.

On the other hand, exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public
good. It is awarded when the defendant has acted with gross negligence in quasi-delict cases, or when
the defendant in contracts or quasi-contracts cases has acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive or malevolent manner. In any case, the award of exemplary damages presupposes that the
plaintiff is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages. Exemplary damages are to be given
only in addition to moral damages such that complainants must first establish a clear right to moral
damages before they are deemed entitled to exemplary damages.