Case Digest (G.R. No. 18009)
Facts:
Emilio Punsalan et al. v. C. Boon Liat et al., G.R. No. 18009. January 10, 1923, the Supreme Court En Banc, Avancena, C.J., writing for the Court.On about 13 July 1920, a group of twenty-two Moros, including Tamsi, Bayrula, and Ahamad, discovered and killed a whale off Cawit‑Cawit, Zamboanga; in the whale's abdomen they found a large quantity of ambergris which they quartered and placed in sacks. The ambergris was left in the house of Maharaja Butu for safekeeping; the twenty‑two men agreed that none could sell the amber without the consent of the others. A portion (a half sack) was taken to Zamboanga and sold by Tamsi and companions to Chinese buyers Cheong Tong and Lim Chiat for P2,700, the proceeds being distributed among the parties.
The remaining amber in two full sacks remained at Maharaja Butu’s house. Negotiations ensued and Tamsi and others purported to sell that amber to Cheong Tong and Lim Chiat for P12,000 (document Exhibit A). While a launch, Ching‑kang, was returning to Cawit‑Cawit to fetch the amber, information—apparently a ruse—was given to Mr. Henry E. Teck and the master of the revenue cutter Mindoro that contraband opium might be at Maharaja Butu's house. The Mindoro proceeded to Cawit‑Cawit; the master searched the house, found three trunks containing a black, foul‑smelling substance, and took the trunks aboard. Ahamad accompanied the Mindoro to Zamboanga; during the voyage Teck and others induced Ahamad to sell the amber aboard the cutter, promising protection; Ahamad executed a bill of sale and received P7,500 (part paid P2,500 then balance later).
When Cheong Tong, Lim Chiat, and the Moros who had earlier sold the half sack arrived at Maharaja Butu’s house, the amber was gone. Twenty‑one of the original cofinders (the plaintiffs here) plus Lim Chiat and Cheong Tong sued C. Boon Liat, Ong Chua, Go Tong, Henry E. Teck, and Ahamad for recovery of the 8,012 kilos of ambergris (or its value P60,000) and damages P20,000. The trial court rendered judgment ordering defendants to deliver 20/21 of the am...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May co‑owners plaintiffs maintain an action for recovery of the common property against a co‑owner who has disposed of it without consent?
- Were the sales to Cheong Tong/Lim Chiat and to Teck and his companions valid as to the plaintiffs — specifically, were the purchasers in good faith?
- Did the trial court err in excluding Exhibits 1 and 2 (affidavits) offered by the defendants?
- What is the proper valuation of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)