Aznar vs Yapdiangco

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

DOCTRINE: True owner has a better right than a buyer in good faith to possession
of a stolen good. The car was evidently stolen and that the buyer did not acquire
any valid title thereto.

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 latters 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.
Aznar filed a complaint for replevin against Capt. Yapdiangco of the Phil.
Constabulary

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.

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.

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.