Title
People vs. Echavez
Case
G.R. No. 174542
Decision Date
Aug 3, 2015
Karen Go seeks the return of a truck after the seller, Nick Carandang, fails to make payments and sells it to Lamberto Echavez without her knowledge, leading to a legal battle where Go is held liable for damages and the Supreme Court denies her petition for lack of merit.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 174542)

Facts:

  • The case involves Karen Go vs. Lamberto Echavez (G.R. No. 174542) concerning the ownership and retrieval of a truck.
  • Karen Go runs Kargo Enterprises, which specializes in buying and selling motor vehicles.
  • On December 20, 1996, Nick Carandang, the branch manager of Kargo, signed a Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase for a Fuso Dropside Truck.
  • The contract stipulated five equal monthly payments of P78,710.75, with a clause stating that failure to pay would result in the truck's return and forfeiture of payments.
  • Carandang defaulted on the payments and sold the truck to Lamberto Echavez without Go's consent.
  • Upon learning of the unauthorized sale, Go filed a Complaint for Replevin against Carandang and an unnamed party.
  • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a Writ of Replevin, leading to the truck's seizure from Echavez.
  • Echavez claimed he bought the truck in good faith and sought damages for lost income due to the seizure.
  • The RTC ruled that Go and Carandang were solidarily liable for damages to Echavez.
  • Go appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed her appeal, prompting her to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court denied Go's petition for lack of merit, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision.
  • The Court found no materially conflicting rulings in the RTC's judgment.
  • ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court stated that Go's claim of materially conflicting rulings was unfounded, as the RTC's judgment recognized the separate legal positions of Carandang and Echavez.
  • The lease contract was binding only between Go and Carandang; Echavez, as a good faith purchaser, was not bound by its terms.
  • The four causes of action wer...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.