AZNAR VS YAPDIANGCO

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 Marella,
went to the residence of Santos and expressing his uncle�s intent to purchase the
car. Since Santos wasn't around, it was Irineo 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 prepared and Irineo was instructed by his father not to part with
the deed and the car without receiving the purchase price from Marella. When irineo
and de Dios arrived at the residence of Marella, the latter averred that his money
was short and had to borrow from his sister. He 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. This prompted Santos to report the incident to
the authorities. Thereafter, Marella was able to sell the land to Aznar. And while
in possession of the car, police authorities confiscated the same. This prompted
Aznar to file an action for replevin.

HELD:
Marella never had title to the car as the car wasn't ever delivered to him. While
there was a deed of sale in his favor, he was only able to obtain possession of the
car since he stole it from Santos. The applicable law is Article 559. 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 its 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 2 exceptions to the general rule of
irrevindicabilty�to wit, the owner has lost the thing or 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. Furthermore, the common law principle that
where one of two innocent persons must suffer a fraud perpetrated by another, the
law imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enable
the fraud to be committed, cannot be applied in this case, which is covered by an
express provision of law.

EDCA PUBLISHING v. SANTOS

Possession of Movable property

Possession of movable property acquired in GF is equivalent to title. There is no

need to produce a receipt.
FACTS:
EDCA Publishing sold 406 books to a certain Professor Jose Cruz who ordered these
by telephone, which was agreed to be payable on delivery. The books were
subsequently delivered to him with the corresponding invoice, and he paid with a
personal check.

Cruz then sold the 120 of the books to Leonor Santos who asked for verification,
and was then showed the invoice for the books.

EDCA became suspicious when Cruz ordered another set of books even before his check
cleared. Upon investigation, EDCA found that he wasn�t the person he claimed to be
(Dean in DLSU). EDCA had the police capture Cruz, as well as seize the books from
Santos. Santos demanded the return of the books.
RTC granted the writ of preliminary attachment.
Subsequent dishonor of a check, which did not render the contract of sale void does
not amount to unlawful deprivation of property. (There was a perfected contract of
sale so the proper remedy is specific performance)

ISSUE:
Whether or not the owner was unlawfully deprived of the property?

HELD: No.
Santos was a good faith buyer after taking steps to verify the identity of the
seller. When she was showed the invoice, she reasonably believed that he was a
legitimate seller.

With regard to unlawful deprivation, EDCA was not unlawfully deprived of the
property by mere failure of consideration. There was already a perfected contract
of sale. Proof was even substantiated when EDCA gave the invoice as proof of
payment upon delivery of the books. This did not amount to unlawful taking, because
by the delivery of EDCA to Cruz, ownership of the books already transferred to him.

DE GARCIA V. COURT OF APPEALS/ GUEVARA- Buying Lost or Stolen Goods

(Art 559) One who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of any movable may
recover the same from the possessor except when the owner has been unlawfully
deprived of it and it has been obtained by the latter in good faith at a public
sale wherein the former needs to reimburse the latter of the price paid.

:. THE ONLY EXCEPTION is acquisition in good faith of the possession at a public

sale.

FACTS:
Mrs. Guevara owned a pretty diamond ring with white gold mounting, 2.05 diamond-
solitaire, and 4 brills. Sometime in February 1952, the ring was stolen from her
house. Luckily, on October 1953 (barely a year after), she found it at a
restaurant, La Bulakena, on the finger of the restaurant owner, Consuelo De Garcia.

Guevara asked De Garcia where she bought it and explained to her how she had lost
it. When the ring was handed to her by De Garcia, it fitted her perfectly. The next
time around, she brought her husband and Rebullida, the person whom she bought the
ring from, to verify the identity of the ring. Rebullida examined the ring with the
aid of high power lens and his 30 years of experience. He concluded that it was the
very ring that he had sold to the Guevaras. After that, Guevara sent a written
request for the ring, but De Garcia did not deliver it. When the sheriff tries to
serve a writ of seizure, De Garica likewise refused to deliver the ring.

According to De Garcia, she bought the ring from her kumare who got it from another
Miss who in turn got it from the owner, a certain Aling Petring. Aling Petring
however, was nowhere to be found. She boarded three months at the first buyer�s
house but left a week after her landlady bought the ring. The first buyer did not
even know Aling Petring�s last name nor her forwarding address.
De Garcia claims to be a holder in good faith and for value. She says her
possession is equivalent to title.

[Note: There was a discrepancy as to the weight of the ring at the time it was
purchased and at the time it was found, but this was because De Guevara substituted
the diamond-solitaire with a heavier stone.]
The lower court both ruled in favor of the buyer and CA reversed in favor of the
owner, Guevara. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Who has a better right?

RULING: Guevara (owner)
Article Article 559 again, applies. Remember that the article establishes two
exceptions to the general rule of irrevindicability: 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. THE ONLY EXCEPTION is acquisition in good faith of the
possession at a public sale.

There is no merit in the contention that De Garcia�s possession is in good faith,

equivalent to title, sufficed to defeat the owner�s claim. Possession in good faith
does not really amount to title for the reason that there is a period for
acquisitive prescription for movable through �uninterrupted possession� of 4 years.

The title of the possessor in good faith is not that of ownership, but is merely a
presumptive title sufficient to serve as a basis for acquisitive prescription.
This, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may
recover it from the person in possession of the same.
Besides, De Garcia�s �title�, if any, was weak. Her source, Aling Petring, was
dubious. She did not make a comment when Rebullida examined the ring nor did she
answer Guevara�s letter asserting ownership of it. Her testimony was weak!

Other facts
1. Subject matter = 1 diamond ring 18 cts. white gold mounting, with 1 2.05 cts.
diamond-solitaire, and 4 brills 0.10 cts. total weight.
2. Mr. Rebullida�s experience in the jewelry business = 30 years
3. Mrs. Garcia = owner of La Bulake�a restaurant
4. Weight of the diamonds:
5. substituted diamond = 2.57 cts.
6. lost diamond (guevara�s) = 2.05 cts
7. Ruling of the CA = return the ring or pay P1,000 and costs, P1,000 (atty�s fees)
& P1,000 as exemplary damages