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. 268355)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

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 is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.