AZNAR v. YAPDIANGCO- Stolen Goods
YAPDIANGCO
True owner has a better right than a buyer in good faith to
possession of a stolen good.
FACTS:
Teodoro Santos advertised the sale of his FORD FAIRLANE 500 in a
newspaper. On L. De Dios went to the house of Teodoro and talked
to his son Ireneo Santos and said that his uncle Vicente Marella is
interested in buying the said car.
The next day, Ireneo went to the house of Marella and they agreed to
the price of P14,700 on the understanding that it will be paid after the
car has been registered in the latter’s name.
A deed of sale was executed and the registration was changed to the
name of Marella. Ireneo went to Marella to get the payment and
deliver the car who informed him that he is P2,000 short of the
money and that they need to go to his sister to get it. Ireneo, together
with De Dios and an unidentified man went to a house.
Once inside, De Dios asked Ireneo to wait in the sale. After waiting in
vain, he went down and discovered that the car was gone.
Marella was able to sell the car to plaintiff-appellant Jose Aznar and
while attending to registration, the car was seized by Phil.
Constabulary due to the report of the incident.
ISSUE:
Between the two parties, who has the better right?
HELD:
Teodoro Santos has the better right. 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.
AZNAR V.
13 SCRA 486
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.