B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Rubiso v Rivera Rubiso v Rivera
I. Recit-ready summary
This section should discuss the relevant parts of the case with
respect to the syllabus topic. It should include the following: (1) topic of
the controversy; (2) relevant facts; (3) ratio; and (4) dispositive.
II. Facts of the case
Counsel of Rubiso allege that their clients were the owners of a boat
named Valentina, which was stranded in Tingloy, of the municipality of
Bauan, Batangas. They claim that Rivera took possession of the vessel
without the knowledge or consent of Rubiso and he refused to deliver
claiming that he was the owner
Rubiso filed a case for both possession and damages. He argued that
they were unable to repair the vessel and thus were unable to derive profit
from potential voyages. They suffered an uncollected profit of 1,750
Rivera, however, claimed that the boat used to belong to Bonifacio
Gilito to an extent of 2/3 and Sy Qui to an extent of 1/3. Bonifacio Gilito
then sold his share to Chinaman Sy Qui and subsequently Sy Qui sold the
boat to defendant Rivera as shown in a public instrument.
CFI ordered Rivera to place at the disposal of the Rubiso the pilot boat
in litigation
III. Issue/s
1. WON Rivera should be in possession of the vessel? No
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
Records show that Bonifacio Gelito sold his portion of the vessel to
Chinaman Sy Qui and is therefore no longer entitled to exercise any action
on the boat. The boat was then sold to Rivera on January 4, 1915 and was
set forth in a deed ratified before a notary. The document was registered in
the Bureau of Customs on March 17, 1915.
G.R. NO: 15260.
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Movable property
August 18, 1920
However, prior to the document being registered (March 17), a suit was
filed against Sy Qui to enforce payment of a certain sum of money to
creditor Fausto Rubiso (herein plaintiff). Rubiso acquired the vessel at
public auction. The certificate of sale and adjudication of the boat was
issued by the sheriff on January 27. It was also then entered in the
commercial registry on March 14
Art 573 of the code of commerce provides
○ Merchant vessels constitute property which may be
acquired and transferred by any of the means recognized
by law. The acquisition of a vessel must be included in a
written instrument, which shall not produce any effect
with regard to third persons if not recorded in the
commercial registry.
Therefore, inscription with commercial registry was indispensable in
order for the acquisition to affect 3rd persons
Act No. 1900 amended the code of commerce as such
○ The documenting, registering, enrolling, and licensing of
vessels in accordance with the Customs Administrative
Act and customs rules and regulations shall be deemed to
be a registry of vessels within the meaning of the title two
of the Code of Commerce, unless otherwise provided in
said Customs Administrative Act or in said customs rules
and regulations, and the Insular Collector of Customs
shall perform the duties of commercial register
concerning the registering of vessels, as defined in title
two of the Code of Commerce.
Act No. 1900 charged the insular collector of customs with the
fulfillment of the duties of the commercial register concerning the
registering of vessels. Therefore, registration of a bill of sale of a vessel had
to be made in the office of the insular collector of customs
Thus, registration on the registry of the purchase of a vessel is
necessary and indispensable in order that the purchaser’s rights may be
maintained against a claim filed by a third person as required by both the
Code of Commerce and by Act No. 1900
PONENTE:Villamor,, J
DIGEST MAKER: Alec
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED August 18, 1920

Rubiso v Rivera Rubiso v Rivera

It is undeniable that Rivera’s rights cannot prevail over those of Rubiso

in the ownership of the pilot boat Valentina since the sale at a public
auction was recorded in the office of the Collector of Customs on January
27 while the sale to Rivera was not recorded until March 17
● “Ships or vessels, whether moved by steam or by sail, partake, to a
certain extent, of the nature and conditions of real property, on
account of their value and importance in the world commerce; and
for this reason the provisions of article 573 of the Code of
Commerce are nearly identical with those of article 1473 of the
Civil Code.”

Records doesn’t show any positive evidence of losses and damages as

alleged

V. Disposition

For the foregoing considerations, whereby the errors assigned to the

judgment appealed from are deemed to have been refuted, it is our opinion
that said judgment should be, as it is hereby, affirmed, with costs against the
appellant. So ordered.

VI. Notes

DOCTRINE: Ships or vessels, whether moved by steam or by sail,

partake, to a certain extent, of the nature and conditions of real property, on
account of their value and importance in the world commerce; and for this
reason inscription is necessary to to maintain right against 3rd parties.

G.R. NO: 15260. PONENTE:Villamor,, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Movable property DIGEST MAKER: Alec