Sales Sept 10, 2015

SALES SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 1

G.R. No. 80298 April 26, 1990

EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP., petitioner, vs.THE SPOUSES LEONOR and GERARDO SANTOS, doing business under the name and style of "SANTOS BOOKSTORE," and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Emiliano S. Samson, R. Balderrama-Samson, Mary Anne B. Samson for petitioner.Cendana Santos, Delmundo & Cendana for private respondents.

CRUZ, J.:

The case before us calls for the interpretation of Article 559 of the Civil Code and raises the particular question of when a person may be deemed to have been "unlawfully deprived" of movable property in the hands of another. The article runs in full as follows:

Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same.

If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.

The movable property in this case consists of books, which were bought from the petitioner by an impostor who sold it to the private respondents. Ownership of the books was recognized in the private respondents by the Municipal Trial Court, 1 which was sustained by the Regional Trial Court, 2 which was in turn sustained by the Court of Appeals. 3 The petitioner asks us to declare that all these courts have erred and should be reversed.

This case arose when on October 5, 1981, a person identifying himself as Professor Jose Cruz placed an order by telephone with the petitioner company for 406 books, payable on delivery. 4 EDCA prepared the corresponding invoice and delivered the books as ordered, for which Cruz issued a personal check covering the purchase price of P8,995.65. 5 On October 7, 1981, Cruz sold 120 of the books to private respondent Leonor Santos who, after verifying the seller's ownership from the invoice he showed her, paid him P1,700.00. 6

Meanwhile, EDCA having become suspicious over a second order placed by Cruz even before clearing of his first check, made inquiries with the De la Salle College where he had claimed to be a dean and was informed that there was no such person in its employ. Further verification revealed that Cruz had no more account or deposit with the Philippine Amanah Bank, against which he had drawn the payment check. 7 EDCA then went to the police, which set a trap and arrested Cruz on October 7, 1981. Investigation disclosed his real name as Tomas de la Peña and his sale of 120 of the books he had ordered from EDCA to the private respondents. 8

On the night of the same date, EDCA sought the assistance of the police in Precinct 5 at the UN Avenue, which forced their way into the store of the private respondents and threatened Leonor Santos with prosecution for buying stolen property. They seized the 120 books without warrant, loading them in a van belonging to EDCA, and thereafter turned them over to the petitioner. 9

Protesting this high-handed action, the private respondents sued for recovery of the books after demand for their return was rejected by EDCA. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued and the petitioner, after initial refusal, finally surrendered the books to the private respondents. 10 As previously stated, the petitioner was successively rebuffed in the three courts below and now hopes to secure relief from us.

To begin with, the Court expresses its disapproval of the arbitrary action of the petitioner in taking the law into its own hands and forcibly recovering the disputed books from the private respondents. The circumstance that it did so with the assistance of the police, which should have been the first to uphold legal and peaceful processes, has compounded the wrong even more deplorably. Questions like the one at bar are decided not by policemen but by judges and with the use not of brute force but of lawful writs.

Now to the merits

It is the contention of the petitioner that the private respondents have not established their ownership of the disputed books because they have not even produced a receipt to prove they had bought the stock. This is unacceptable. Precisely, the first sentence of Article 559 provides that "the possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title," thus dispensing with further proof.

The argument that the private respondents did not acquire the books in good faith has been dismissed by the lower courts, and we agree. Leonor Santos first ascertained the ownership of the books from the EDCA invoice showing that they had been sold to Cruz, who said he was selling them for a discount because he was in financial need. Private respondents are in the business of buying and selling books and often deal with hard-up sellers who urgently have to part with their books at reduced prices. To Leonor Santos, Cruz must have been only one of the many such sellers she was accustomed to dealing with. It is hardly bad faith for any one in the business of buying and selling books to buy them at a discount and resell them for a profit.


But the real issue here is whether the petitioner has been unlawfully deprived of the books because the check issued by the impostor in payment therefor was dishonored.

In its extended memorandum, EDCA cites numerous cases holding that the owner who has been unlawfully deprived of personal property is entitled to its recovery except only where the property was purchased at a public sale, in which event its return is subject to reimbursement of the purchase price. The petitioner is begging the question. It is putting the cart before the horse. Unlike in the cases invoked, it has yet to be established in the case at bar that EDCA has been unlawfully deprived of the books.

The petitioner argues that it was, because the impostor acquired no title to the books that he could have validly transferred to the private respondents. Its reason is that as the payment check bounced for lack of funds, there was a failure of consideration that nullified the contract of sale between it and Cruz.

The contract of sale is consensual and is perfected once agreement is reached between the parties on the subject matter and the consideration. According to the Civil Code:

Art. 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price.

From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts.

x x x x x x x x x

Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof.

Art. 1478. The parties may stipulate that ownership in the thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he has fully paid the price.

It is clear from the above provisions, particularly the last one quoted, that ownership in the thing sold shall not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase only if there is a stipulation to that effect. Otherwise, the rule is that such ownership shall pass from the vendor to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if the purchase price has not yet been paid.

Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal prosecution in the case of bouncing checks. But absent the stipulation above noted, delivery of the thing sold will effectively transfer ownership to the buyer who can in turn transfer it to another.

In Asiatic Commercial Corporation v. Ang,11 the plaintiff sold some cosmetics to Francisco Ang, who in turn sold them to Tan Sit Bin. Asiatic not having been paid by Ang, it sued for the recovery of the articles from Tan, who claimed he had validly bought them from Ang, paying for the same in cash. Finding that there was no conspiracy between Tan and Ang to deceive Asiatic the Court of Appeals declared:

Yet the defendant invoked Article 464 12 of the Civil Code providing, among other things that "one who has been unlawfully deprived of personal property may recover it from any person possessing it." We do not believe that the plaintiff has been unlawfully deprived of the cartons of Gloco Tonic within the scope of this legal provision. It has voluntarily parted with them pursuant to a contract of purchase and sale. The circumstance that the price was not subsequently paid did not render illegal a transaction which was valid and legal at the beginning.

In Tagatac v. Jimenez,13 the plaintiff sold her car to Feist, who sold it to Sanchez, who sold it to Jimenez. When the payment check issued to Tagatac by Feist was dishonored, the plaintiff sued to recover the vehicle from Jimenez on the ground that she had been unlawfully deprived of it by reason of Feist's deception. In ruling for Jimenez, the Court of Appeals held:

The point of inquiry is whether plaintiff-appellant Trinidad C. Tagatac has been unlawfully deprived of her car. At first blush, it would seem that she was unlawfully deprived thereof, considering that she was induced to part with it by reason of the chicanery practiced on her by Warner L. Feist. Certainly, swindling, like robbery, is an illegal method of deprivation of property. In a manner of speaking, plaintiff-appellant was "illegally deprived" of her car, for the way by which Warner L. Feist induced her to part with it is illegal and is punished by law. But does this "unlawful deprivation" come within the scope of Article 559 of the New Civil Code?

x x x x x x x x x

. . . The fraud and deceit practiced by Warner L. Feist earmarks this sale as a voidable contract (Article 1390 N.C.C.). Being a voidable contract, it is susceptible of either ratification or annulment. If the contract is ratified, the action to annul it is extinguished (Article 1392, N.C.C.) and the contract is cleansed from all its defects (Article 1396, N.C.C.); if the contract is annulled, the contracting parties are restored to their respective situations before the contract and mutual restitution follows as a consequence (Article 1398, N.C.C.).

However, as long as no action is taken by the party entitled, either that of annulment or of ratification, the contract of sale remains valid and binding. When plaintiff-appellant Trinidad C. Tagatac delivered the car to Feist by virtue of said voidable contract of sale, the title to the car passed to Feist. Of course, the title that Feist acquired was defective and voidable.


Nevertheless, at the time he sold the car to Felix Sanchez, his title thereto had not been avoided and he therefore conferred a good title on the latter, provided he bought the car in good faith, for value and without notice of the defect in Feist's title (Article 1506, N.C.C.). There being no proof on record that Felix Sanchez acted in bad faith, it is safe to assume that he acted in good faith.

The above rulings are sound doctrine and reflect our own interpretation of Article 559 as applied to the case before us.

Actual delivery of the books having been made, Cruz acquired ownership over the books which he could then validly transfer to the private respondents. The fact that he had not yet paid for them to EDCA was a matter between him and EDCA and did not impair the title acquired by the private respondents to the books.

One may well imagine the adverse consequences if the phrase "unlawfully deprived" were to be interpreted in the manner suggested by the petitioner. A person relying on the seller's title who buys a movable property from him would have to surrender it to another person claiming to be the original owner who had not yet been paid the purchase price therefor. The buyer in the second sale would be left holding the bag, so to speak, and would be compelled to return the thing bought by him in good faith without even the right to reimbursement of the amount he had paid for it.

It bears repeating that in the case before us, Leonor Santos took care to ascertain first that the books belonged to Cruz before she agreed to purchase them. The EDCA invoice Cruz showed her assured her that the books had been paid for on delivery. By contrast, EDCA was less than cautious — in fact, too trusting in dealing with the impostor. Although it had never transacted with him before, it readily delivered the books he had ordered (by telephone) and as readily accepted his personal check in payment. It did not verify his identity although it was easy enough to do this. It did not wait to clear the check of this unknown drawer. Worse, it indicated in the sales invoice issued to him, by the printed terms thereon, that the books had been paid for on delivery, thereby vesting ownership in the buyer.

Surely, the private respondent did not have to go beyond that invoice to satisfy herself that the books being offered for sale by Cruz belonged to him; yet she did. Although the title of Cruz was presumed under Article 559 by his mere possession of the books, these being movable property, Leonor Santos nevertheless demanded more proof before deciding to buy them.

It would certainly be unfair now to make the private respondents bear the prejudice sustained by EDCA as a result of its own negligence.1âwphi1 We cannot see the justice in transferring EDCA's loss to the Santoses who had acted in good faith, and with proper care, when they bought the books from Cruz.

While we sympathize with the petitioner for its plight, it is clear that its remedy is not against the private respondents but against Tomas de la Peña, who has apparently

caused all this trouble. The private respondents have themselves been unduly inconvenienced, and for merely transacting a customary deal not really unusual in their kind of business. It is they and not EDCA who have a right to complain.

WHEREFORE, the challenged decision is AFFIRMED and the petition is DENIED, with costs against the petitioner.


G.R. No. L-18536 March 31, 1965

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

Florentino M. Guanlao for plaintiff-appellant.Rafael Yapdiangco in his own behalf as defendant-appellee.Lorenzo Sumulong, R. B. Hilao and B. S. Felipe for intervenor-appellee.

REGALA, J.:

This is an appeal, on purely legal questions, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, Branch IV, declaring the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro Santos, entitled to the possession of the car in dispute.

The records before this Court disclose that sometime in May, 1959, Teodoro Santos advertised in two metropolitan papers the sale of his FORD FAIRLANE 500. In the afternoon of May 28, 1959, a certain L. De Dios, claiming to be a nephew of Vicente Marella, went to the Santos residence to answer the ad. However, Teodoro Santos was out during this call and only the latter's son, Irineo Santos, received and talked with De Dios. The latter told the young Santos that he had come in behalf of his uncle, Vicente Marella, who was interested to buy the advertised car.

On being informed of the above, Teodoro Santos instructed his son to see the said Vicente Marella the following day at his given address: 1642 Crisostomo Street, Sampaloc, Manila. And so, in the morning of May 29, 1959, Irineo Santos went to the above address. At this meeting, Marella agreed to buy the car for P14,700.00 on the understanding that the price would be paid only after the car had been registered in his name.

Irineo Santos then fetched his father who, together with L. De Dios, went to the office of a certain Atty. Jose Padolina where the deed of the sale for the car was executed in Marella's favor. The parties to the contract thereafter proceeded to the Motor Vehicles Office in Quezon City where the registration of the car in Marella's name was effected. Up to this stage of the transaction, the purchased price had not been paid.

From the Motor Vehicles Office, Teodoro Santos returned to his house. He gave the registration papers and a copy of the deed of sale to his son, Irineo, and instructed him not to part with them until Marella shall have given the full payment for the car. Irineo Santos and L. De Dios then proceeded to 1642 Crisostomo Street, Sampaloc, Manila where the former demanded the payment from Vicente Marella. Marella said that the amount he had on hand then was short by some P2,000.00 and begged off to be allowed to secure the shortage from a sister supposedly living somewhere on Azcarraga Street, also in Manila. Thereafter, he ordered L. De Dios to go to the said

sister and suggested that Irineo Santos go with him. At the same time, he requested the registration papers and the deed of sale from Irineo Santos on the pretext that he would like to show them to his lawyer. Trusting the good faith of Marella, Irineo handed over the same to the latter and thereupon, in the company of L. De Dios and another unidentified person, proceeded to the alleged house of Marella's sister.

At a place on Azcarraga, Irineo Santos and L. De Dios alighted from the car and entered a house while their unidentified companion remained in the car. Once inside, L. De Dios asked Irineo Santos to wait at the sala while he went inside a room. That was the last that Irineo saw of him. For, after a considerable length of time waiting in vain for De Dios to return, Irineo went down to discover that neither the car nor their unidentified companion was there anymore. Going back to the house, he inquired from a woman he saw for L. De Dios and he was told that no such name lived or was even known therein. Whereupon, Irineo Santos rushed to 1642 Crisostomo to see Marella. He found the house closed and Marella gone. Finally, he reported the matter to his father who promptly advised the police authorities.

That very same day, or on the afternoon of May 29, 1959 Vicente Marella was able to sell the car in question to the plaintiff-appellant herein, Jose B. Aznar, for P15,000.00. Insofar as the above incidents are concerned, we are bound by the factual finding of the trial court that Jose B. Aznar acquired the said car from Vicente Marella in good faith, for a valuable consideration and without notice of the defect appertaining to the vendor's title.

While the car in question was thus in the possession of Jose B. Aznar and while he was attending to its registration in his name, agents of the Philippine Constabulary seized and confiscated the same in consequence of the report to them by Teodoro Santos that the said car was unlawfully taken from him.

In due time, Jose B. Aznar filed a complaint for replevin against Captain Rafael Yapdiangco, the head of the Philippine Constabulary unit which seized the car in question Claiming ownership of the vehicle, he prayed for its delivery to him. In the course of the litigation, however, Teodoro Santos moved and was allowed to intervene by the lower court.

At the end of the trial, the lower court rendered a decision awarding the disputed motor vehicle to the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro Santos. In brief, it ruled that Teodoro Santos had been unlawfully deprived of his personal property by Vicente Marella, from whom the plaintiff-appellant traced his right. Consequently, although the plaintiff-appellant acquired the car in good faith and for a valuable consideration from Vicente Marella, the said decision concluded, still the intervenor-appellee was entitled to its recovery on the mandate of Article 559 of the New Civil Code which provides:

ART. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to title. Nevertheless, one who lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same.


If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.

From this decision, Jose B. Aznar appeals.

The issue at bar is one and simple, to wit: Between Teodoro Santos and the plaintiff-appellant, Jose B. Aznar, who has a better right to the possession of the disputed automobile?

We find for the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro Santos.

The plaintiff-appellant accepts that the car in question originally belonged to and was owned by the intervenor-appellee, Teodoro Santos, and that the latter was unlawfully deprived of the same by Vicente Marella. However, the appellant contends that upon the facts of this case, the applicable provision of the Civil Code is Article 1506 and not Article 559 as was held by the decision under review. Article 1506 provides:

ART. 1506. Where the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto, but his, title has not been voided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith, for value, and without notice of the seller's defect of title.

The contention is clearly unmeritorious. Under the aforequoted provision, it is essential that the seller should have a voidable title at least. It is very clearly inapplicable where, as in this case, the seller had no title at all.

Vicente Marella did not have any title to the property under litigation because the same was never delivered to him. He sought ownership or acquisition of it by virtue of the contract. Vicente Marella could have acquired ownership or title to the subject matter thereof only by the delivery or tradition of the car to him.

Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, "ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by testate and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition." As interpreted by this Court in a host of cases, by this provision, ownership is not transferred by contract merely but by tradition or delivery. Contracts only constitute titles or rights to the transfer or acquisition of ownership, while delivery or tradition is the mode of accomplishing the same (Gonzales v. Rojas, 16 Phil. 51; Ocejo, Perez and Co. v. International Bank, 37 Phil. 631, Fidelity and Deposit Co. v. Wilson, 8 Phil. 51; Kuenzle & Streiff v. Wacke & Chandler, 14 Phil. 610; Easton v. Diaz Co., 32 Phil. 180).

For the legal acquisition and transfer of ownership and other property rights, the thing transferred must be delivered, inasmuch as, according to settled jurisprudence, the tradition of the thing is a necessary and indispensable

requisite in the acquisition of said ownership by virtue of contract. (Walter Laston v. E. Diaz & Co. & the Provincial Sheriff of Albay, supra.)

So long as property is not delivered, the ownership over it is not transferred by contract merely but by delivery. Contracts only constitute titles or rights to the transfer or acquisition of ownership, while delivery or tradition is the method of accomplishing the same, the title and the method of acquiring it being different in our law. (Gonzales v. Roxas, 16 Phil. 51)

In the case on hand, the car in question was never delivered to the vendee by the vendor as to complete or consummate the transfer of ownership by virtue of the contract. It should be recalled that while there was indeed a contract of sale between Vicente Marella and Teodoro Santos, the former, as vendee, took possession of the subject matter thereof by stealing the same while it was in the custody of the latter's son.

There is no adequate evidence on record as to whether Irineo Santos voluntarily delivered the key to the car to the unidentified person who went with him and L. De Dios to the place on Azcarraga where a sister of Marella allegedly lived. But even if Irineo Santos did, it was not the delivery contemplated by Article 712 of the Civil Code. For then, it would be indisputable that he turned it over to the unidentified companion only so that he may drive Irineo Santos and De Dios to the said place on Azcarraga and not to vest the title to the said vehicle to him as agent of Vicente Marella. Article 712 above contemplates that the act be coupled with the intent of delivering the thing. (10 Manresa 132)

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. (Del Rosario v. Lucena, 8 Phil. 535; Varela v. Finnick, 9 Phil. 482; Varela v. Matute, 9 Phil. 479; Arenas v. Raymundo, 19 Phil. 46. Tolentino, id., Vol. II, p. 261.)

In the case of Cruz v. Pahati, et al., 52 O.G. 3053 this Court has already ruled that —

Under Article 559 of the new Civil Code, a person illegally deprived of any movable may recover it from the person in possession of the same and the only defense the latter may have is if he has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, in which case, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor. In the present case, plaintiff has been illegally deprived of his car through the ingenious scheme of defendant B to


enable the latter to dispose of it as if he were the owner thereof. Plaintiff, therefore, can still recover possession of the car even if it is in the possession of a third party who had acquired it in good faith from defendant B. The maxim that "no man can transfer to another a better title than he had himself" obtains in the civil as well as in the common law. (U.S. v. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147)

Finally, the plaintiff-appellant here contends that inasmuch as it was the intervenor-appellee who had caused the fraud to be perpetrated by his misplaced confidence on Vicente Marella, he, the intervenor-appellee, should be made to suffer the consequences arising therefrom, following the equitable principle to that effect. Suffice it to say in this regard that the right of the owner to recover personal property acquired in good faith by another, is based on his being dispossessed without his consent. The common law principle that where one of two innocent persons must suffer by a fraud perpetrated by another, the law imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enabled the fraud to be committed, cannot be applied in a case which is covered by an express provision of the new Civil Code, specifically Article 559. Between a common law principle and a statutory provision, the latter must prevail in this jurisdiction. (Cruz v. Pahati, supra)

UPON ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed and the decision of the lower court affirmed in full. Costs against the appellant.


April 13, 1956

G.R. No. L-8257

JOSE R. CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

REYNALDO PAHATI, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Panganiban Law Offices and Arsenio Roldan for appellant.

Carlos, Laurea, Fernando and Padilla for appellees.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

This is an action of replevin instituted by plaintiff in the Court of Firts Instance of

Manila to recover the possession of an automobile and certain amount as damages

and attorney's fees resulting from his illegal deprivation thereof.

The original defendants were Reynaldo Pahati and Felixberto Bulahan but, upon

amendment of the complaint, Jesusito Belizo was included as party defendant who

was summoned by publication because his whereabouts were not known. Belizo

failed to appear or answer the complaint and so he was declared default.

Pahati admitted having bought the automobile from Bulahan, for the sum of P4,900

which he paid in check. When the Manila Police Department impounded the

automobile, he cancelled the sale and stopped the payment of the check and as a

result he returned the automobile to Bulahan who in turned surrended the check for

cancellation. He set up a counterclaim for the sum of P2,000 as attorney's fees.

Bulahan on his part claims that he acquired the automobile from Jesusito Belizo for

value and without having any knowledge of any defect in the title of the latter; that

plaintiff had previously acquired title to said automobile by purchase from Belizo as

evidenced by a deed of sale executed to that effect; that later plaintiff delivered the

possession of the automobile to Belizo for resale and to facilitate it he gave the latter

a letter of authority to secure a new certificate of registration in his name (plaintiff's)

and that by having clothed Belizo with an apparent ownership or authority to sell the

automobile, plaintiff is now estopped to deny such ownership or authority. Bulahan

claims that between two innocent parties, he who gave occasion, through his

conduct, to the falsification committed by Belizo, should be the one to suffer the loss

and this one is the plaintiff. Bulahan also set up a counterclaim for P17,000 as

damages and attorney's fees.

After the presentation of the evidence, the court rendered judgment declaring

defendant Bulahan entitled to the automobile in question and consequently ordered

the plaintiff to return it to said defendant and, upon his failure to do so, to pay him the

sum of P4,900, with legal interest from the date of the decision. The claim for

damages and attorney's fees of Bulahan was denied. Defendant Belizo was however

ordered to indemnify the plaintiff in the amount of P4,900 and pay the sum of P5,000

as moral damages. The counterclaim of defendant Pahati was denied for lack of

evidence. The case was taken directly to this Court by the plaintiff.

The lower court found that the automobile in question was originally owned by the

Nothern Motors, Inc. which later sold it to Chinaman Lu Dag. This Chinaman sold it

afterwards to Jesusito Belizo and the latter in turn sold it to plaintiff. Belizo was then a

dealer in second hand cars. One year thereafter, Belizo offered the plaintiff to sell the

automobile for him claiming to have a buyer for it. Plaintiff agreed. At that time,

plaintiff's certificate of registration was missing and, upon the suggestion of Belizo,


plaintiff wrote a letter addressed to the Motor Section of the Bureau of Public Works

for the issuance of a new registration certificate alleging as reason the loss of the one

previously issued to him and stating that he was intending to sell his car. This letter

was delivered to Belizo on March 3, 1952. He also turned over Belizo the automobile

on the latter's pretext that he was going to show it to a prospective buyer. On March

7, 1952, the letter was falsified and converted into an authorized deed of sale in favor

of Belizo by erasing a portion thereof and adding in its place the words "sold the

above car to Mr. Jesusito Belizo of 25 Valencia, San Francisco del Monte, for Five

Thousand Pesos (P5,000)." Armed with this deed of sale, Belizo succeeded in

ontaining a certificate of registration in his name on the same date, March 7, 1952,

and also on the same date, Belizo sold the car to Felixberto Bulahan who in turn sold

it to Reynaldo Pahati, a second hand car dealer. These facts show that the letter was

falsified by Belizo to enable him to sell the car to Bulahan for a valuable

consideration.

This is a case which involves a conflict of rights of two persons who claim to be the

owners of the same property; plaintiff and defendant Bulahan. Both were found by the

lower court to be innocent and to have acted in good faith. They were found to be the

victims of Belizo who falsified the letter given him by plaintiff to enable him to sell the

car of Bulahan for profit. Who has, therefore, a better right of the two over the car?

The law applicable to the case is Article 559 of the new Civil Code which provides:

ART. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to

a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived

thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same.

If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been unlawfully

deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its

return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.

It appears that "one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived

thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same" and the only

defense the latter may have is if he "has acquired it in good faith at a public sale" in

which case "the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid

therefor." And supplementing this provision, Article 1505 of the same Code provides

that "where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who does

not sell them under authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no

better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his

conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell.

Applying the above legal provisions to the facts of this case, one is inevitably led to

the conclusion that plaintiff has a better right to the car in question than defendant

Bulahan for it cannot be disputed that plaintiff had been illegally deprived thereof

because of the ingenious scheme utilized by Belizo to enable him to dispose of it as if

he were the owner thereof. Plaintiff therefore can still recover the possession of the

car even if defendant Bulahan had acted in good faith in purchasing it from Belizo.

Nor can it be pretended that the conduct of plaintiff in giving Belizo a letter to secure

the issuance of a new certificate of registration constitutes a sufficient defense that

would preclude recovery because of the undisputed fact that that letter was falsified

and this fact can be clearly seen by a cursory examination of the document. If

Bulahan had been more diligent he could have seen that the pertinent portion of the


letter had been erased which would have placed him on guard to make an inquiry as

regards the authority of Belizo to sell the car. This he failed to do.

The right of the plaintiff to the car in question can also be justified under the doctrine

laid down in U. S. vs. Sotelo, 28 Phil., 147. This is a case of estafa wherein one

Sotelo misappropriated a ring belonging to Alejandra Dormir. In the course of the

decision, the Court said that "Whoever may have been deprived of his property in

consequence of a crime is entitled to the recovery thereof, even if such property is in

the possession of a third party who acquired it by legal means other than those

expressly stated in Article 464 of the Civil Code" (p. 147), which refers to property

pledged in the "Monte de Piedad", an establishment organized under the authority of

the Government. The Court further said: It is a fundamental principle of our law of

personal property that no man can be divested of it without his own consent;

consequently, even an honest purchaser, under a defective title, cannot resist the

claim of the true owner. The maxim that 'No man can transfer a better title than he

has himself "obtain in the civil as well as in the common law." (p. 158).

Counsel for appellee places much reliance on the common law principle that "Where

one of two innocent parties must suffer by a fraud perpetrated by another, the law

imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enabled the

fraud to be committed" (Sager vs. W. T. Rawleight Co. 153 Va. 514, 150 S. E. 244, 66

A.L.R. 305), and contends that, as between plaintiff and Bulahan, the former should

bear the loss because of the confidence he reposed in Belizo which enabled the latter

to commit the falsification. But this principle cannot be applied to this case which is

coverred by an express provision of our new Civil Code. Between a common law

principle and a statutory provision, the latter must undoubtedly prevail in this

jurisdiction. Moreover we entertain serious doubt if, under the circumstances

obtaining, Bulahan may be considered more innocent than the plaintiff in dealing with

the car in question. We prefer not to elaborate on this matter it being necessary

considering the conclusion we have reached.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The Court declares plaintiff to be

entitled to recover the car in question, and orders defendant Jesusito Belizo to pay

him the sum of P5,000 as moral damages, plus P2,000 as attorney's fees. The Court

absolves defendant Bulahan and Pahati from the complaint as regards the claim for

damages, reserving to Bulahan whatever action he may deem proper to take against

Jesusito Belizo. No costs.

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr9791-u-s-v-sotelo.html


G.R. No. L-30817 September 29, 1972

DOMINADOR DIZON, doing business under the firm name "Pawnshop of Dominador Dizon", petitioner, vs.LOURDES G. SUNTAY, respondent.

Andres T. Velarde for petitioner.

Rafael G. Suntay for respondent.

FERNANDO, J.:p

In essence there is nothing novel in this petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a lower court judgment sustaining the right of an owner of a diamond ring, respondent Lourdes G. Suntay, as against the claim of petitioner Dominador Dizon, who owns and operates a pawnshop. The diamond ring was turned over to a certain Clarita R. Sison, for sale on commission, along with other pieces of jewelry of respondent Suntay. It was then pledged to petitioner. Since what was done was violative of the terms of the agency, there was an attempt on her part to recover possession thereof from petitioner, who refused. She had to file an action then for its recovery. She was successful, as noted above, both in the lower court and thereafter in the Court of Appeals. She prevailed as she had in her favor the protection accorded by Article 559 of the Civil Code. 1 The matter was then elevated to us by petitioner. Ordinarily, our discretion would have been exercised against giving due course to such petition for review. The vigorous plea however, grounded on estoppel, by his counsel, Atty. Andres T. Velarde, persuaded us to act otherwise. After a careful perusal of the respective contentions of the parties, we fail to perceive any sufficient justification for a departure from the literal language of the applicable codal provision as uniformly interpreted by this Court in a number of decisions. The invocation of estoppel is therefore unavailing. We affirm.

The statement of the case as well as the controlling facts may be found in the Court of Appeals decision penned by Justice Perez. Thus: "Plaintiff is the owner of a three-carat diamond ring valued at P5,500.00. On June 13, 1962, the plaintiff and Clarita R. Sison entered into a transaction wherein the plaintiff's ring was delivered to Clarita R. Sison for sale on commission. Upon receiving the ring, Clarita R. Sison executed and delivered to the plaintiff the receipt ... . The plaintiff had already previously known Clarita R. Sison as the latter is a close friend of the plaintiff's cousin and they had frequently met each other at the place of the plaintiff's said cousin. In fact, about one year before their transaction of June 13, 1962 took place, Clarita R. Sison received a piece of jewelry from the plaintiff to be sold for P500.00, and when it was sold, Clarita R. Sison gave the price to the plaintiff. After the lapse of a considerable time without Clarita R. Sison having returned to the plaintiff the latter's ring, the plaintiff made

demands on Clarita R. Sison for the return of her ring but the latter could not comply with the demands because, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, on June 15, 1962 or three days after the ring above-mentioned was received by Clarita R. Sison from the plaintiff, said ring was pledged by Melia Sison, niece of the husband of Clarita R. Sison, evidently in connivance with the latter, with the defendant's pawnshop for P2,600.00 ... ." 2 Then came this portion of the decision under review: "Since the plaintiff insistently demanded from Clarita R. Sison the return of her ring, the latter finally delivered to the former the pawnshop ticket ... which is the receipt of the pledge with the defendant's pawnshop of the plaintiff's ring. When the plaintiff found out that Clarita R. Sison pledged, she took steps to file a case of estafa against the latter with the fiscal's office. Subsequently thereafter, the plaintiff, through her lawyer, wrote a letter ... dated September 22, 1962, to the defendant asking for the delivery to the plaintiff of her ring pledged with defendant's pawnshop under pawnshop receipt serial-B No. 65606, dated June 15, 1962 ... . Since the defendant refused to return the ring, the plaintiff filed the present action with the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of said ring, with P500.00 as attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiff asked for the provisional remedy of replevin by the delivery of the ring to her, upon her filing the requisite bond, pending the final determination of the action. The lower court issued the writ of replevin prayed for by plaintiff and the latter was able to take possession of the ring during the pendency of the action upon her filing the requisite bond." 3 It was then noted that the lower court rendered judgment declaring that plaintiff, now respondent Suntay, had the right to the possession of the ring in question. Petitioner Dizon, as defendant, sought to have the judgment reversed by the Court of Appeals. It did him no good. The decision of May 19, 1969, now on review, affirmed the decision of the lower court.

In the light of the facts as thus found by the Court of Appeals, well-nigh conclusive on use, with the applicable law being what it is, this petition for review cannot prosper. To repeat, the decision of the Court of Appeals stands.

1. There is a fairly recent restatement of the force and effect of the governing codal norm in De Gracia v. Court of Appeals. 4 Thus: "The controlling provision is Article 559 of the Civil Code. It reads thus: 'The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person in possession of the same. If the possessor of a movable lost of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.' Respondent Angelina D. Guevara, having been unlawfully deprived of the diamond ring in question, was entitled to recover it from petitioner Consuelo S. de Garcia who was found in possession of the same. The only exception the law allows is when there is acquisition in good faith of the possessor at a public sale, in which case the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price. As authoritatively interpreted in Cruz v. Pahati, the right of the owner cannot be defeated even by proof that there was good faith in the acquisition by the possessor. There is a reiteration of this principle in Aznar v. Yapdiangco. Thus: 'Suffice it to say in this regard that the right of the owner to recover personal property acquired in good faith by another, is based on his being dispossessed without his consent. The common law principle that were one of two innocent persons must


suffer by a fraud perpetrated by another, the law imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enabled the fraud to be committed, cannot be applied in a case which is covered by an express provision of the new Civil Code, specifically Article 559. Between a common law principle and a statutory provision, the latter must prevail in this jurisdiction." " 5

2. It must have been a recognition of the compulsion exerted by the above authoritative precedents that must have caused petitioner to invoke the principle of estoppel. There is clearly a misapprehension. Such a contention is devoid of any persuasive force.

Estoppel as known to the Rules of Court 6 and prior to that to the Court of Civil Procedure, 7 has its roots in equity. Good faith is its basis. 8 It is a response to the demands of moral right and natural justice. 9 For estoppel to exist though, it is indispensable that there be a declaration, act or omission by the party who is sought to be bound. Nor is this all. It is equally a requisite that he, who would claim the benefits of such a principle, must have altered his position, having been so intentionally and deliberately led to comport himself thus, by what was declared or what was done or failed to be done. If thereafter a litigation arises, the former would not be allowed to disown such act, declaration or omission. The principle comes into full play. It may successfully be relied upon. A court is to see to it then that there is no turning back on one's word or a repudiation of one's act. So it has been from our earliest decisions. As Justice Mapa pointed out in the first case, a 1905 decision, Rodriguez v. Martinez, 10 a party should not be permitted "to go against his own acts to the prejudice of [another]. Such a holding would be contrary to the most rudimentary principles of justice and law." 11 He is not, in the language of Justice Torres, in Irlanda v. Pitargue, 12 promulgated in 1912, "allowed to gainsay [his] own acts or deny rights which [he had] previously recognized." 13 Some of the later cases are to the effect that an unqualified and unconditional acceptance of an agreement forecloses a claim for interest not therein provided. 14 Equally so the circumstance that about a month after the date of the conveyance, one of the parties informed the other of his being a minor, according to Chief Justice Paras, "is of no moment, because [the former's] previous misrepresentation had already estopped him from disavowing the contract. 15 It is easily understandable why, under the circumstances disclosed, estoppel is a frail reed to hang on to. There was clearly the absence of an act or omission, as a result of which a position had been assumed by petitioner, who if such elements were not lacking, could not thereafter in law be prejudiced by his belief in what had been misrepresented to him. 16 As was put by Justice Labrador, "a person claimed to be estopped must have knowledge of the fact that his voluntary acts would deprive him of some rights because said voluntary acts are inconsistent with said rights."17 To recapitulate, there is this pronouncement not so long ago, from the pen of Justice Makalintal, who reaffirmed that estoppel "has its origin in equity and, being based on moral right and natural justice, finds applicability wherever and whenever the special circumstances of a case so demand." 18

How then can petitioner in all seriousness assert that his appeal finds support in the doctrine of estoppel? Neither the promptings of equity nor the mandates of moral right and natural justice come to his rescue. He is engaged in a business where

presumably ordinary prudence would manifest itself to ascertain whether or not an individual who is offering a jewelry by way of a pledge is entitled to do so. If no such care be taken, perhaps because of the difficulty of resisting opportunity for profit, he should be the last to complain if thereafter the right of the true owner of such jewelry should be recognized. The law for this sound reason accords the latter protection. So it has always been since Varela v. Finnick, 19 a 1907 decision. According to Justice Torres: "In the present case not only has the ownership and the origin of the jewels misappropriated been unquestionably proven but also that the accused, acting fraudulently and in bad faith, disposed of them and pledged them contrary to agreement, with no right of ownership, and to the prejudice of the injured party, who was thereby illegally deprived of said jewels; therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 464, the owner has an absolute right to recover the jewels from the possession of whosoever holds them, ... ." 20 There have been many other decisions to the same effect since then. At least nine may be cited. 21 Nor could any other outcome be expected, considering the civil code provisions both in the former Spanish legislation 22 and in the present Code. 23 Petitioner ought to have been on his guard before accepting the pledge in question. Evidently there was no such precaution availed of. He therefore, has only himself to blame for the fix he is now in. It would be to stretch the concept of estoppel to the breaking point if his contention were to prevail. Moreover, there should have been a realization on his part that courts are not likely to be impressed with a cry of distress emanating from one who is in a business authorized to impose a higher rate of interest precisely due to the greater risk assumed by him. A predicament of this nature then does not suffice to call for less than undeviating adherence to the literal terms of a codal provision. Moreover, while the activity he is engaged in is no doubt legal, it is not to be lost sight of that it thrives on taking advantage of the necessities precisely of that element of our population whose lives are blighted by extreme poverty. From whatever angle the question is viewed then, estoppel certainly cannot be justly invoked.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals of May 19, 1969 is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.


G.R. No. L-2412 April 11, 1906

PEDRO ROMAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs.ANDRES GRIMALT, defendant-appellee.

Alberto Barretto, for appellant.Chicote, Miranda and Sierra, for appellee.

TORRES, J.:

On July 2, 1904, counsel for Pedro Roman filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of this city against Andres Grimalt, praying that judgment be entered in his favor and against the defendant (1) for the purchase price of the schooner Santa Marina, to wit, 1,500 pesos or its equivalent in Philippine currency, payable by installments in the manner stipulated; (2) for legal interest on the installments due on the dates set forth in the complaint; (3) for costs of proceedings; and (4) for such other and further remedy as might be considered just and equitable.

On October 24 of the same year the court made an order sustaining the demurer filed by defendant to the complaint and allowing plaintiff ten days within which to amend his complaint. To this order the plaintiff duly excepted.

Counsel for plaintiff on November 5 amended his complaint and alleged that between the 13th and the 23rd day of June, 1904, both parties, through one Fernando Agustin Pastor, verbally agreed upon the sale of the said schooner; that the defendant in a letter dated June 23 had agreed to purchase the said schooner and of offered to pay therefor in three installment of 500 pesos each, to wit, on July 15, September 15, and November 15, adding in his letter that if the plaintiff accepted the plan of payment suggested by him the sale would become effective on the following day; that plaintiff on or about the 24th of the same month had notified the defendant through Agustin Pastor that he accepted the plan of payment suggested by him and that from that date the vessel was at his disposal, and offered to deliver the same at once to defendant if he so desired; that the contract having been closed and the vessel being ready for delivery to the purchaser, it was sunk about 3 o'clock p. m., June 25, in the harbor of Manila and is a total loss, as a result of a severe storm; and that on the 30th of the same month demand was made upon the defendant for the payment of the purchase price of the vessel in the manner stipulated and defendant failed to pay. Plaintiff finally prayed that judgment be rendered in accordance with the prayer of his previous complaint.

Defendant in his answer asked that the complaint be dismissed with costs to the plaintiff, alleging that on or about June 13 both parties met in a public establishment of this city and the plaintiff personally proposed to the defendant the sale of the said vessel, the plaintiff stating that the vessel belonged to him and that it was then in a sea worthy condition; that defendant accepted the offer of sale on condition that the title papers were found to be satisfactory, also that the vessel was in a seaworthy

condition; that both parties then called on Calixto Reyes, a notary public, who, after examining the documents, informed them that they were insufficient to show the ownership of the vessel and to transfer title thereto; that plaintiff then promised to perfect his title and about June 23 called on defendant to close the sale, and the defendant believing that plaintiff had perfected his title, wrote to him on the 23d of June and set the following day for the execution of the contract, but, upon being informed that plaintiff had done nothing to perfect his title, he insisted that he would buy the vessel only when the title papers were perfected and the vessel duly inspected.

Defendant also denied the other allegations of the complaint inconsistent with his own allegations and further denied the statement contained in paragraph 4 of the complaint to the effect that the contract was completed as to the vessel; that the purchase price and method of payment had been agreed upon; that the vessel was ready for delivery to the purchaser and that an attempt had been made to deliver the same, but admitted, however, the allegations contained in the last part of the said paragraph.

The court below found that the parties had not arrived at a definite understanding. We think that this finding is supported by the evidence introduced at the trial.

A sale shall be considered perfected and binding as between vendor and vendee when they have agreed as to the thing which is the object of the contract and as to the price, even though neither has been actually delivered. (Art. 1450 of the Civil Code.)

Ownership is not considered transmitted until the property is actually delivered and the purchaser has taken possession of the value and paid the price agreed upon, in which case the sale is considered perfected.

When the sale is made by means of a public instrument the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract. (Art. 1462 of the Civil Code.)

Pedro Roman, the owner, and Andres Grimalt, the purchaser, had been for several days negotiating for the purchase of the schooner Santa Marina — from the 13th to the 23d of June, 1904. They agreed upon the sale of the vessel for the sum of 1,500 pesos, payable in three installments, provided the title papers to the vessel were in proper form. It is so stated in the letter written by the purchaser to the owner on the 23rd of June.

The sale of the schooner was not perfected and the purchaser did not consent to the execution of the deed of transfer for the reason that the title of the vessel was in the name of one Paulina Giron and not in the name of Pedro Roman, the alleged owner. Roman promised, however, to perfect his title to the vessel, but he failed to do so. The papers presented by him did not show that he was the owner of the vessel.


If no contract of sale was actually executed by the parties the loss of the vessel must be borne by its owner and not by a party who only intended to purchase it and who was unable to do so on account of failure on the part of the owner to show proper title to the vessel and thus enable them to draw up the contract of sale.

The vessel was sunk in the bay on the afternoon of the 25th of June, 1904, during a severe storm and before the owner had complied with the condition exacted by the proposed purchaser, to wit, the production of the proper papers showing that the plaintiff was in fact the owner of the vessel in question.

The defendant was under no obligation to pay the price of the vessel, the purchase of which had not been concluded. The conversations had between the parties and the letter written by defendant to plaintiff did not establish a contract sufficient in itself to create reciprocal rights between the parties.

It follows, therefore, that article 1452 of the Civil Code relative to the injury or benefit of the thing sold after a contract has been perfected and articles 1096 and 1182 of the same code relative to the obligation to deliver a specified thing and the extinction of such obligation when the thing is either lost or destroyed, are not applicable to the case at bar.

The first paragraph of article 1460 of the Civil Code and section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable. These provisions contemplate the existence of a perfected contract which can not, however, be enforced on account of the entire loss of the thing or made the basis of an action in court through failure to conform to the requisites provided by law.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed and the complaint is dismissed with costs against the plaintiff. After the expiration of twenty days from the date hereof let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the Court of First Instance for proper action. So ordered.


G.R. No. L-21263 April 30, 1965

LAWYERS COOPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs.PERFECTO A. TABORA, defendant-appellant.

Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno for plaintiff-appellee.Tabora and Concon for defendant-appellant.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

On May 3, 1955, Perfecto A. Tabora bought from the Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company one complete set of American Jurisprudence consisting of 48 volumes with 1954 pocket parts, plus one set of American Jurisprudence, General Index, consisting of 4 volumes, for a total price of P1,675.50 which, in addition to the cost of freight of P6.90, makes a total of P1,682.40. Tabora made a partial payment of P300.00, leaving a balance of P1,382.40. The books were duly delivered and receipted for by Tabora on May 15, 1955 in his law office Ignacio Building, Naga City.

In the midnight of the same date, however, a big fire broke out in that locality which destroyed and burned all the buildings standing on one whole block including at the law office and library of Tabora As a result, the books bought from the company as above stated, together with Tabora's important documents and papers, were burned during the conflagration. This unfortunate event was immediately reported by Tabora to the company in a letter he sent on May 20, 1955. On May 23, the company replied and as a token of goodwill it sent to Tabora free of charge volumes 75, 76, 77 and 78 of the Philippine Reports. As Tabora failed to pay he monthly installments agreed upon on the balance of the purchase price notwithstanding the long time that had elapsed, the company demanded payment of the installments due, and having failed, to pay the same, it commenced the present action before the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of the balance of the obligation. Plaintiff also prayed that defendant be ordered to pay 25% of the amount due as liquidated damages, and the cost of action.

Defendant, in his answer, pleaded force majeure as a defense. He alleged that the books bought from the plaintiff were burned during the fire that broke out in Naga City on May 15, 1955, and since the loss was due to force majeure he cannot be held responsible for the loss. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed and that he be awarded moral damages in the amount of P15,000.00.

After due hearing, the court a quo rendered judgment for the plaintiff. It ordered the defendant to pay the sum of P1,382.40, with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint, plus a sum equivalent to 25% of the total amount due as liquidated damages, and the cost of action.

Defendant took the case to the Court of Appeals, but the same is now before us by virtue of a certification issued by that Court that the case involves only questions of law.

Appellant bought from appellee one set of American Jurisprudence, including one set of general index, payable on installment plan. It was provided in the contract that "title to and ownership of the books shall remain with the seller until the purchase price shall have been fully paid. Loss or damage to the books after delivery to the buyer shall be borne by the buyer." The total price of the books, including the cost of freight, amounts to P1,682.40. Appellant only made a down payment of P300.00 thereby leaving a balance of P1,382.40. This is now the import of the present action aside from liquidated damages.

Appellant now contends that since it was agreed that the title to and the ownership of the books shall remain with the seller until the purchase price shall have been fully paid, and the books were burned or destroyed immediately after the transaction, appellee should be the one to bear the loss for, as a result, the loss is always borne by the owner. Moreover, even assuming that the ownership of the books were transferred to the buyer after the perfection of the contract the latter should not answer for the loss since the same occurred through force majeure. Here, there is no evidence that appellant has contributed in any way to the occurrence of the conflagration.1äwphï1.ñët

This contention cannot be sustained. While as a rule the loss of the object of the contract of sale is borne by the owner or in case of force majeure the one under obligation to deliver the object is exempt from liability, the application of that rule does not here obtain because the law on the contract entered into on the matter argues against it. It is true that in the contract entered into between the parties the seller agreed that the ownership of the books shall remain with it until the purchase price shall have been fully paid, but such stipulation cannot make the seller liable in case of loss not only because such was agreed merely to secure the performance by the buyer of his obligation but in the very contract it was expressly agreed that the "loss or damage to the books after delivery to the buyer shall be borne by the buyer." Any such stipulation is sanctioned by Article 1504 of our Civil Code, which in part provides:

(1) Where delivery of the goods has been made to the buyer or to a bailee for the buyer, in pursuance of the contract and the ownership in the goods has been retained by the seller merely to secure performance by the buyer of his obligations under the contract, the goods are at the buyer's risk from the time of such delivery.

Neither can appellant find comfort in the claim that since the books were destroyed by fire without any fault on his part he should be relieved from the resultant obligation under the rule that an obligor should be held exempt from liability when the loss occurs thru a fortuitous event. This is because this rule only holds true when the obligation consists in the delivery of a determinate thing and there is no stipulation


holding him liable even in case of fortuitous event. Here these qualifications are not present. The obligation does not refer to a determinate thing, but is pecuniary in nature, and the obligor bound himself to assume the loss after the delivery of the goods to him. In other words, the obligor agreed to assume any risk concerning the goods from the time of their delivery, which is an exception to the rule provided for in Article 1262 of our Civil Code.

Appellant likewise contends that the court a quo erred in sentencing him to pay attorney's fees. This is merely the result of a misapprehension for what the court a quo ordered appellant to pay is not 25% of the amount due as attorney's fees, but as liquidated damages, which is in line with an express stipulation of the contract. We believe, however, that the appellant should not be made to pay any damages because his denial to pay the balance of the account is not due to bad faith.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified by eliminating that portion which refers to liquidated damages. No costs.

Documents

Sales Sept 10, 2015