ARTICLE 529

129. Aznar v. HOW THE CASE STARTED Teodoro Santos has a better right.
Yapdiangco - In May, 1959, Teodoro Santos advertised in two
Aznar accepts that the car in question originally belonged to and was
metropolitan papers the sale of his FORD FAIRLANE
owned by Teodoro Santos, and that the latter was unlawfully
500.
deprived of the same by Vicente Marella. However, Aznar contends
- De Dios, claiming to be a nephew of Vicente Marella,
that upon the facts of this case, the applicable provision of the Civil
went to the Santos residence to answer the ad.
Code is Article 1506 and not Article 559 as was held by the decision
- However, Teodoro Santos was out during this call and
under review. Article 1506 provides:
only the latter's son, Irineo Santos, received and talked
with De Dios.
ART. 1506. Where the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto, but
- De Dios had come in behalf of his uncle, Vicente
his, title has not been voided at the time of the sale, the buyer
Marella, who was interested to buy the advertised car.
acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good
- Teodoro Santos instructed his son to see the said
faith, for value, and without notice of the seller's defect of title.
Vicente Marella the following day at his given address:
1642 Crisostomo Street, Sampaloc, Manila. The contention is clearly unmeritorious. Under the aforequoted
- At this meeting, Marella agreed to buy the car for provision, it is essential that the seller should have a voidable title at
P14,700.00 on the understanding that the price would least. It is very clearly inapplicable where, as in this case, the seller
be paid only after the car had been registered in his had no title at all.
name.
- Irineo Santos then fetched his father who, together Vicente Marella did not have any title to the property under litigation

with L. De Dios, went to the office of a certain Atty. because the same was never delivered to him.

Jose Padolina where the deed of the sale for the car
Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, "ownership and other real rights
was executed in Marella's favor. Up to this stage of
over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by
the transaction, the purchased price had not been
testate and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain
paid.
contracts, by tradition." As interpreted by this Court in a host of cases,
- Teodoro Santos gave the registration papers and a
by this provision, ownership is not transferred by contract merely but
copy of the deed of sale to his son, Irineo, and
by tradition or delivery.
instructed him not to part with them until Marella shall
have given the full payment for the car. In the case on hand, the car in question was never delivered to the
- Irineo Santos and L. De Dios then proceeded to 1642 vendee by the vendor as to complete or consummate the transfer of
Crisostomo Street, Sampaloc, Manila where the former
 demanded the payment from Vicente Marella. Marella
said that the amount he had on hand then was short
by some P2,000.00 and begged off to be allowed to
secure the shortage from a sister supposedly living
somewhere on Azcarraga Street, also in Manila.
Thereafter, he ordered L. De Dios to go to the said
sister and suggested that Irineo Santos go with him.
At the same time, he requested the registration papers
and the deed of sale from Irineo Santos on the pretext
that he would like to show them to his lawyer. Trusting
the good faith of Marella, Irineo handed over the same
to the latter and thereupon, in the company of L. De
Dios and another unidentified person, proceeded to
the alleged house of Marella's sister.
- Irineo Santos and L. De Dios alighted from the car and
entered a house while their unidentified companion
remained in the car. Once inside, L. De Dios asked
Irineo Santos to wait at the sala while he went inside
a room. That was the last that Irineo saw of him. For,
after a considerable length of time waiting in vain for
De Dios to return, Irineo went down to discover that
neither the car nor their unidentified companion was
there anymore. Going back to the house, he inquired
from a woman he saw for L. De Dios and he was told
that no such name lived or was even known therein.
Whereupon, Irineo Santos rushed to Crisostomo to see
Marella. He found the house closed and Marella gone.
Finally, he reported the matter to his father who
promptly advised the police authorities.
- Vicente Marella was able to sell the car in question to
the plaintiff-appellant herein, Jose B. Aznar, for
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
Article 712 above contemplates that the act be coupled with the
intent of delivering the thing.
The lower court was correct in applying Article 559 of the Civil Code
to the case at bar, for under it, the rule is to the effect that if the
owner has lost a thing, or if he has been unlawfully deprived of it, he
has a right to recover it, not only from the finder, thief or robber, but
also from third persons who may have acquired it in good faith from
such finder, thief or robber.
In these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as against the
owner, who may recover it without paying any indemnity, except
when the possessor acquired it in a public sale.
Finally, the plaintiff-appellant here contends that inasmuch as it was
the intervenor-appellee who had caused the fraud to be perpetrated
 P15,000.00. Insofar as the above incidents are by his misplaced confidence on Vicente Marella, he, the intervenor-
concerned, we are bound by the factual finding of the appellee, should be made to suffer the consequences arising
trial court that Jose B. Aznar acquired the said car from therefrom, following the equitable principle to that effect.
Vicente Marella in good faith, for a valuable
The common law principle that where one of two innocent persons
consideration and without notice of the defect
must suffer by a fraud perpetrated by another, the law imposes the
appertaining to the vendor's title.
loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enabled
- While the car in question was thus in the possession
the fraud to be committed, cannot be applied in a case which is
of Jose B. Aznar and while he was attending to its
covered by an express provision of the new Civil Code, specifically
registration in his name, agents of the Philippine
Article 559. Between a common law principle and a statutory
Constabulary seized and confiscated the same in
provision, the latter must prevail in this jurisdiction.
consequence of the report to them by Teodoro Santos
that the said car was unlawfully taken from him.
- Aznar filed a complaint for replevin

ISSUE: Between Teodoro Santos and the plaintiff-appellant,

Jose B. Aznar, who has a better right to the possession of the
disputed automobile?