Cruz V Pahati

CRUZ V. PAHATI, et al.
GR NO. L-8257 April 13. 1956
SALE BY NON OWNERS OR ONE HAVING VOIDABLE TITLE
Facts:
1. An action of replevin instituted by Cruz in the CFI of Manila to recover the possession of an
automobile and certain amount as damages and attorneys fees resulting from his illegal deprivation thereof.
2. Pahati bought the automobile from Bulahan for P4,900.00 which he paid in check. The Manila
Police Department impounded the automobile, Pahati cancelled the sale and stopped the payment of the
check and returned the automobile to Bulahan and then surrendered the check for cancellation.
3. 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 and as evidenced by a deed of sale. Belizo, a dealer
of second hand cars.
4. The CFI declared Bulahan entitled to the car in question and ordered Cruz to return it to Bulaha.
It was found out that the automobile was originally owned by Nothern Motors Inc, which sold it to
Chinaman Lu Dag, then sold it to Belizo and Belizo sold it to Cruz.
5. One year thereafter, Belizo offered the plaintiff’s (Cruz) to sell the automobile claiming to have
a buyer for it. Cruz agreed. At that time, plaintiff’s certificate of registration was missing and Belizo
suggested to 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 for loss.
5. 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 5,000”.
6. Belizo then obtained a certificate of registration in his name and then sold the car to Bulahan
who in turn sold it to Pahati, also a second hand car dealer. Belizo falsified the letter to enable him to sell
the car to Bulahan.
7. This case involves a conflict of rights of two persons who claim to be owners of the same
property; Cruz and Bulahan. Both were found to be innocent and to have acted in good faith. Both victms
of Belizo.
Issue: Who has a better right of the two over the car?
Ruling: Cruz has a better right.
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.
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.
"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."
FALLO:
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.

Cruz V Pahati

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz V Pahati

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cruz V Pahati

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRUZ V. PAHATI, et al.

GR NO. L-8257 April 13. 1956

SALE BY NON OWNERS OR ONE HAVING VOIDABLE TITLE

Ruling: Cruz has a better right.

You might also like