G.R. No.

L-18536 March 31, 1965

JOSE B. AZNAR, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RAFAEL
YAPDIANGCO, defendant-appellee;
TEODORO SANTOS, intervenor-appellee.

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 Vicente Marella, went
to the residence of Santos and expressed his uncle’s intent to purchase the car.
 Since Santos wasn't around, it was Irineo (son of Theodoro) 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 EXECUTED and the
REGISTRATION WAS CHANGED TO THE NAME OF MARELLA.
 Upon arriving at the house of Vicente Marella, he said that his money was short and
that he had to borrow from his sister.
 Marella 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. Santos reported the incident to the
authorities.
 Thereafter, Marella was able to sell the land to Aznar. While in possession of the car,
police authorities confiscated the same from him.
 Aznar filed an action for replevin (to recover the car). Claiming ownership of the vehicle , he
prayed for its delivery to him.
ISSUE:
May Santos recover his car?

RULING:
YES!
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, in which case, reimbursement is in order.

Marella did not have any title to the property under litigation because the same was never delivered to him. He
may have the contract but he never acquired valid title. Although the keys to the car may have been given to the
unidentified companion, it may be done only because that companion took them to the place where the sister of
Marella was supposed to live. The car was evidently stolen and that the buyer did not acquire any valid title
thereto.