Tagatac vs Jimenez
for the delivery of the car, but the latter refused.
Facts:
 Trinidad Tagatac bought a car for $4,500 in the US.
After 7 months, she brought the car to the
Philippines.
 Warner Feist, who pretended to be a wealthy man,
offered to buy Trinidad’s car for P15,000, and
Tagatac was amenable to the idea. Hnece, a deed
of sale was exceuted.
 Feist paid by means of a postdated check, and the
car was delivered to Feist. However, PNB refused to
honor the checks and told her that Feist had no
account in said bank.
 Tagatac notified the law enforcement agencies of
the estafa committed by Feist, but the latter was not
apprehended and the car disappeared.
 Meanwhile, Feist managed succeeded in having the
car’s registration certificate (RC) transferred in his
name. He sold the car to Sanchez, who was able to
transfer the registration certificate to his name.
 Sanchez then offered to sell the car to defendant
Liberato Jimenez, who bought the car for P10,000
after investigating in the Motor Vehicles Office.
 Tagatac discovered that the car was in California
Car Exchange’s (place where Jimenez displayed the
car for sale), so she demanded from the manager
 Tagatac filed a suit for the recovery of the car’s
possession, and the sheriff, pursuant to a warrant of
seizure that Tagatac obtained, seized and
impounded the car, but it was delivered back to
Jimenez upon his filing of a counter-bond.
 The lower court held that Jimenez had the right of
ownership and possession over the car.
Issue: WON Jimenez was a purchaser in good faith and
thus entitled to the ownership and possession of the car.
YES
Held:
It must be noted that Tagactac was not unlawfully
deprived of his car
In this case, there is a valid transmission of ownership
from true owner [Tagatac] to the swindler [Feist],
considering that they had a contract of sale (note: but
such sale is voidable for the fraud and deceit by Feist).
The disputable presumption that a person found in
possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act
does NOT apply in this case because the car was not
stolen from Tagatac, and Jimenez came into possession
of the car two months after Feist swindled Tagatac.

Jimenez was a purchaser in good faith for he was not
aware of any flaw invalidating the title from the seller
of the car
In addition, when Jimenez acquired the car, he had no
knowledge of any flaw in the title of the person from
whom he acquired it. It was only later that he became
fully aware that there were some questions regarding the
car, when he filed a petition to dissolve Tagatac’s search
warrant which had as its subject the car in question.
car passed to Feist. Of course, the title that Feist
acquired was defective and voidable.
Nevertheless, at the time he sold the car to Felix
Sanchez, his title thereto had not been avoided and he
therefore conferred a good title on the latter, provided he
bought the car in good faith, for value and without notice
of the defect in Feist's title (Article 1506, N.C.C.). There
being no proof on record that Felix Sanchez acted in bad
faith, it is safe to assume that he acted in good faith.

The contract between Feist and Tagactac was a

voidable contract, it can be annulled or ratified
. . . The fraud and deceit practiced by Warner L. Feist
earmarks this sale as a voidable contract (Article 1390
N.C.C.). Being a voidable contract, it is susceptible of
either ratification or annulment.
(
If the contract is ratified, the action to annul it is
extinguished (Article 1392, N.C.C.) and the contract is
cleansed from all its defects (Article 1396, N.C.C.); if the
contract is annulled, the contracting parties are restored
to their respective situations before the contract and
mutual restitution follows as a consequence (Article 1398,
N.C.C.).

Being a voidable contract, it remains valid and

binding until annulled
However, as long as no action is taken by the party
entitled, either that of annulment or of ratification, the
contract of sale remains valid and binding. When plaintiff-
appellant Trinidad C. Tagatac delivered the car to Feist
by virtue of said voidable contract of sale, the title to the