Title
Norkis Distributors, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 91029
Decision Date
Feb 7, 1991
Norkis failed to deliver a motorcycle to Nepales, which was destroyed in an accident. The Supreme Court ruled Norkis bore the loss, as ownership had not transferred.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 255496)

Facts:

  • Parties and Contract
    • Petitioner Norkis Distributors, Inc., Yamaha motorcycle distributor in Negros Occidental, represented by Branch Manager Avelino Labajo.
    • Respondent Alberto Nepales purchased on September 20, 1979 a brand‐new Yamaha Wonderbike Model YL2DX for ₱7,500, payable through a Letter of Guaranty from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Kabankalan Branch.
  • Security, Invoice, and Possession
    • Nepales executed a chattel mortgage over the motorcycle in favor of DBP; Sales Invoice No. 0120 was issued and signed by Nepales.
    • The motorcycle remained physically in Norkis’ possession pending bank release of the loan proceeds.
  • Registration, Alleged Delivery, and Accident
    • On November 6, 1979, the unit was registered in Nepales’ name at the Land Transportation Commission; registration fees were paid by Nepales.
    • On January 22, 1980, Norkis allegedly “delivered” the motorcycle to Julian Nepales (denied by Alberto), who presented it to DBP’s appraiser.
    • On February 3, 1980, the motorcycle, driven by one Zacarias Payba, met a total‐wreck accident; the unit was returned to and stored in Norkis’ warehouse.
  • Loan Release and Judicial Proceedings
    • On March 20, 1980, DBP released ₱7,500 to Norkis; Nepales paid the ₱328 price difference and demanded delivery.
    • Nepales filed for specific performance with damages in the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. 1272), alleging nondelivery and claiming damages.
    • Trial court ruled for Nepales: award of present value or replacement motorcycle, interest, exemplary damages, daily damages, and costs.
    • Court of Appeals affirmed but deleted daily damages; petitioner sought Supreme Court review.

Issues:

  • Whether ownership and risk of loss passed to Nepales before the accident.
    • Did the issuance of the sales invoice and registration in Nepales’ name constitute constructive delivery?
    • Was there vendor intention to transfer ownership when the vehicle remained in Norkis’ possession and served as bank collateral?
  • Under the Civil Code, who bears the risk of loss for a determinate thing sold but not delivered when destroyed by a fortuitous event?
    • Application of Articles 1262 and 1496.
    • Relevance of the doctrine of res perit domino.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.