Title
Ang vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 177874
Decision Date
Sep 29, 2008
A car-swapping deal led to a dispute when Ang's purchased vehicle was seized due to a prior owner's unpaid mortgage. Ang paid to release it but failed to recover reimbursement from Soledad. Courts ruled Ang's claim prescribed, and Soledad was not unjustly enriched.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135222)

Transaction Details

On July 28, 1992, Bruno Soledad sold his Mitsubishi GSR sedan (1982 model) to Jaime Ang through a Deed of Absolute Sale. In exchange, Ang sold Soledad his Mitsubishi Lancer (1988 model), with Soledad additionally paying Ang P55,000. Ang, engaged in the business of buying and selling used vehicles, later sold the Mitsubishi GSR to Paul Bugash for P225,000.

Seizure of the Vehicle

The vehicle was seized due to a writ of replevin issued on January 26, 1993, because of a mortgage debt owed by the previous owner, Ronaldo Panes. To recover the vehicle, Ang paid BA Finance Corporation P62,038.47 to release it from the mortgage. Despite multiple demands, Soledad refused to reimburse Ang, prompting Ang to file a complaint for Estafa against Soledad, which was dismissed for insufficient evidence.

Civil Cases and their Dismissals

Ang subsequently filed three complaints for damages against Soledad in different jurisdictions. The first complaint was dismissed for failure to undergo barangay conciliation, while the second complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The third complaint, filed on July 15, 1996, with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), was dismissed on the grounds of prescription, as too much time had elapsed since the transaction.

RTC Findings and Verdict

Ang's appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) resulted in a mixed ruling; while affirming the original dismissal, the RTC also found that it was equitable for Soledad to reimburse Ang the amount he paid to BA Finance. However, the RTC also noted the lack of merit in Ang’s broader claims, emphasizing that the time frame for filing was critical.

Appellate Court's Reversal

Soledad appealed to the Court of Appeals, which ultimately reversed the RTC's ruling. It concluded that Ang's complaints had prescription issues and emphasized Ang’s responsibility as a buyer to conduct due diligence regarding the vehicle's title. The appellate court held that Soledad's obligation ended with the delivery of the vehicle, and he was not liable for any subsequent issues arising from the vehicle's prior encumbrances.

Legal Principles Involved

Core to the case was the distinction between express and implied warranties under the Civil Code. The relevant provisions included Articles 1546 (express warranties) and 1571 (implied warranties against hidden defects and encumbrances). The Court observed that the Deed of Absolute Sale contained an implied warranty of title and a warranty against eviction.

Prescriptive Period and

...continue reading

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.