G.R. No. L-18536 – JOSE B. AZNAR, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RAFAEL YAPDIANGCO, defendant-appellee; TEODORO SANTOS, intervenor-appellee
REGALA, J.
Rule Synopsis
The rightful owner of the thing unlawfully deprived thereof has better right than a person who subsequently acquires the same in good faith and for value.
Facts
Teodoro Santos sold his car to one Vicente Marella. The latter, however, fraudulently took possession of the car by stealing it, and thereafter selling the same to one Jose B. Aznar. The latter was found by the lower courts to be a buyer in good faith and for a valuable consideration. The stealing incident, however, had been reported to the police who seized and confiscated the subjective vehicle.
Thus, Aznar filed a complaint for replevin against Yapdiangco of the Philippine Constabulary. Santos intervened.
The CFI ruled that Teodoro Santos is entitled to the possession of the property. The SC affirmed.
Issue
Who has the better right to the automobile?
Ruling and Discussion
Teodoro Santos has the better right to the automobile.
Art. 559 is applicable in this case, to wit: as regards a personal property, a person who either a) lost the thing, or b) unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover the same from the person who has possession thereof without reimbursement, except when the latter acquired it from a public auction, in which case, reimbursement is in order. The rule holds even if the person who obtained possession of the same acquired it in good faith and for value. In this case, it was established that Santos was unlawfully deprived of the subject property. He may thus recover the same from the current possessor, Aznar.
Marella, from whom Aznar obtained his title, is not vested with the ownership of the car in question as there had been no delivery to him, he merely took possession thereof by stealing the same.
The equitable 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 Art. 559.
Dispositive
Decision affirmed.