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 uncles 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 Marellas 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.