G.R. No. 83558 - National Power Corp. vs. Vera

The house of Lichauco (or Lichauco Brothers) had been offering for sale certain old machinery and boilers, which were deposited and displayed in a yard at Tanduay in Manila.
The items on sale were part of an inventory that included a variety of old industrial equipment.

On January 8, 1912, Marciano Rivera, the plaintiff, purchased some of the old material for the price of ₱5,500.
Rivera received a receipt from Crisanto Lichauco indicating that he had become the purchaser of the following items:

Despite the purchase, Rivera did not take possession of the items, which remained in the location where they were originally displayed.

On February 9, 1912, the defendant, Ong Che, purchased from the Lichauco Brothers a lot of old iron, machinery, and junk for the sum of ₱1,100.
Immediately after the purchase, Ong Che took possession of the materials he acquired.

When Rivera later attempted to take possession of the items he had supposedly bought, he discovered that several accessory and auxiliary parts of the boilers, motor, and rice mill were missing.
An investigation revealed that these missing parts were in the possession of Ong Che, who claimed that he was the rightful owner resulting from his subsequent purchase.

Rivera instituted the present action to recover the disputed articles, asserting his status as the true owner based on the earlier sale.
At the Court of First Instance of Manila, judgment was rendered in favor of defendant Ong Che.
On appeal, the disputed matter centered largely on the doctrines of possession and the good faith purchase as well as conflicting testimonies regarding the true ownership of the property.
Testimonies revealed inconsistencies concerning the origin of the items:

Crisanto Lichauco testified that the property sold to Rivera belonged to Galo Lichauco.
The same witness admitted that the machinery had been taken from an old mill owned by the Lichauco Brothers in Dagupan, leaving unclear whether Galo Lichauco possessed exclusive ownership.
Evidence by the defendant suggested that the articles in dispute were sold by Faustino Lichauco as part of the house’s property, not exclusively by Galo Lichauco.

Rivera failed to appear as a witness at the hearing.
No steps were taken to secure the testimony of either Galo Lichauco or Faustino Lichauco, both of whom could have been material witnesses for his claim.
Rivera’s counsel sought a continuance to call these witnesses, but the trial court denied the request, citing the necessity for the plaintiff to use reasonable diligence in securing their attendance.

Whether the plaintiff could claim ownership of the disputed articles solely based on an earlier sale and receipt, despite never having taken actual possession of the items.
Whether the defendant’s act of purchasing the property later, taking possession, and being a purchaser in good faith, conferred upon him a superior title under Article 1473 of the Civil Code and related provisions.
Whether the refusal by the trial court to grant a continuance for the plaintiff to present material witnesses constituted an abuse of discretion.
Whether the conflicting testimonies regarding the original ownership of the property affect the determination of title between the parties.