Tagatac v.
Jimenez car, when he filed a petition to dissolve Tagatacs search
TRINIDAD TAGATAC v. LIBERATO JIMENEZ
1957 / Ocampo / Appeal from CFI judgment
Trinidad Tagatac bought a car for $4,500 in the US, and
seven months later, she brought the car to the
Philippines. When her friend Joseph Lee came to see
her, he was with one Warner Feist who posed as a
wealthy man. Seeing that Tagatac seemed to believe
him, he offered to buy her car for P15,000, and Tagatac
was amenable to the idea. The deed of sale was made,
Feist paid by means of a postdated check, and the car
was delivered to Feist. When Tagatac tried to encash the
check, PNB refused to honor it and told her that Feist
had no account in said bank. Tagatac notified the law
enforcement agencies of the estafa committed on her by
Feist, but he was not apprehended and the car
disappeared.
Meanwhile, Feist managed to have the private deed of
sale notarized, so he succeeded in having the cars
registration certificate [RC] transferred in his name. He
sold the car to Sanchez, who was able to transfer the RC
to his name. He offered to sell the car to defendant
Liberato Jimenez, who bought the car for P10,000 after
investigating in the Motor Vehicles Office. Jimenez
delivered the car to the California Car Exchange so that
it may be displayed for sale. Masalonga offered to sell
the car for Jimenez, so the car was transferred to the
former, but when Masalonga failed to sell it right away,
he transferred it to Villanueva so he could sell it for
Jimenez. Tagatac discovered that the car was in
California Car Exchanges possession, so she demanded
from the manager for the delivery of the car, but the
latter refused. The RC was retransferred to Jimenez.
Tagatac filed a suit for the recovery of the cars
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.
JIMENEZ IS A PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH;
TAGATAC NOT ENTITLED TO POSSESSION
RATIO
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. 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
warrant which had as its subject the car in question.
Re: Tagatacs allegation that the lower court ignored the
judgment convicting Feist of estafa, and that it erred in
not declaring that restitution of the swindled property
must follow, SHE IS WRONG! The lower court noted
that Feist was accused of estafa because of the check and
NOT because of the delivery of the car.
Her legal basis for the restitution of thing is RPC 104-51
. Now the question is WON she has beenunlawfully
deprived of her car. It seems like though, but it does not
fall under the scope of NCC 599. 2In 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.
As long as no action is taken by the entitled party
[annulment / ratification], the contract of sale remains
valid and binding. Feist acquired defective and voidable
title, but when he sold it to Sanchez, he conferred a good
title on the latter. Jimenez bought the car from Sanchez
in good faith, for value, and without notice of any defect
in Sanchez title, so he acquired a good title to the car.
Good title means an indefeasible title to the car, even as
against original owner Tagatac. As between two
innocent parties, the one whose acts made possible the
injury must shoulder the consequences thereof.
-------------------------
1 Civil liability of person who is criminally liable
includes restitution of thing even though it is with a third
person who acquired it legally
2 Although possession of movable property acquired in
good faith is equivalent to a title, one who has lost any
movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may
recover it from the person who possesses it.
Tagatac Vs. Jimenez
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 Trinidads 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
cars registration certificate (RC) transferred in his
1
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
Exchanges (place where Jimenez displayed the car for
sale), so she demanded from the manager for the
delivery of the car, but the latter refused.
Tagatac filed a suit for the recovery of the cars
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 Tagatacs
search warrant which had as its subject the car in
question.
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 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.
Reference:
TRINIDAD TAGATAC v. LIBERATO JIMENEZ
53 OG 3792