G.R. No. 80298 – 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.
CRUZ, J.
Rule Synopsis
The validity of the sale is not affected by defects in the performance of the obligations under the same, e.g. check issued as payment is dishonored.
Facts
EDCA Publishing & Distributing Corp. sold books to one Jose Cruz, the latter paid via checks. Cruz sold some of these books to one Leonor Santos. It was later found out however that Jose Cruz was an impostor and that the checks are worthless. Cruz was arrested. The books sold to Santos were also seized without warrant. Santos later recovered them by virtue of a writ of preliminary attachment. EDCA sought to recover the same arguing that Santos was not the lawful owner of the books having failed to produce any receipt to prove that she bought the same; and that having been unlawfully deprived of said books, it is entitled to recover the same under Art. 559.
The MTC, RTC and CA all ruled that Santos had better right over the books in question. The SC affirmed.
Issue
Has EDCA been unlawfully deprived of the books because the check issued by the impostor in payment therefor was dishonored?
Ruling and Discussion
No. EDCA was not unlawfully deprived of the books because the check issued by the impostor in payment therefor was dishonored.
The sale between EDCA and the impostor was valid, the sale being consensual in character. EDCA’s delivery of said books to the latter transferred ownership thereon, there being no stipulation reserving to the seller ownership over the thing until it was fully paid as provided under Art. 1478. That the checks were dishonored merely creates a right to demand payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal prosecution in the case of bouncing checks. In any case, the validity of the sale remain unaffected. In other words, EDCA voluntarily parted with the goods by virtue of a valid contract of purchase and sale, it was not unlawfully deprived of possession thereof.
Dispositive
Decision affirmed.