Title
Aznar vs. Yapdiangco
Case
G.R. No. L-18536
Decision Date
Mar 31, 1965
Teodoro Santos, unlawfully deprived of his car by Vicente Marella, successfully reclaimed it from Jose Aznar, who acquired it in good faith, as ownership was never transferred due to lack of delivery.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192514)

Chronology of the Initial Sale Transaction

In May 1959, Teodoro Santos advertised his Ford Fairlane. On May 29, his son Irineo, acting on instructions, met Vicente Marella at Crisostomo Street. Marella agreed to purchase for ₱14,700, payment to follow registration. A deed of sale was executed before Atty. José Padolina, and registration in Marella’s name was effected. Title and ownership, however, remained with Santos until full payment and actual delivery.

Scheme of Deprivation and Theft

After registration, Santos’s son and L. De Dios demanded payment from Marella, who claimed a ₱2,000 shortfall and proposed to fetch the balance from his “sister” on Azcárraga Street. Marella obtained the registration papers and the deed of sale from Irineo under the pretext of legal consultation, then lured Irineo and De Dios to the sister’s house. There, Marella’s accomplice and the vehicle disappeared, and Marella closed his Sampaloc residence.

Subsequent Sale to Appellant and Seizure

Later on May 29, Marella sold the same car to Jose B. Aznar for ₱15,000. While Aznar was attending to registration in his name, Santos reported the theft to the Philippine Constabulary. Captain Yap-Diangco’s unit seized the car, prompting Aznar to file a replevin action against Yap-Diangco for its restitution.

Trial Court Proceedings and Lower Court Ruling

The Court of First Instance of Quezon City allowed Santos to intervene. It found that: (1) Santos was the original owner unlawfully deprived of the car; (2) Aznar was a good-faith purchaser for value but acquired from a thief; and (3) under Article 559 of the Civil Code, an owner may reclaim a movable unlawfully taken, even from a bona fide purchaser, without indemnity except in cases of public sale. The court awarded possession to Santos.

Legal Issue on Appeal

Whether Aznar’s good faith purchase from Marella vested in him a better right to possession under Article 1506 (voidable title) or whether Santos’s right to reclaim under Article 559 (unlawful deprivation) prevailed.

Inapplicability of Article 1506

Article 1506 protects buyers from sellers holding a voidable title. Marella never acquired ownership because, under Article 712, title to movables transfers only by tradition (delivery), not by contract alone. Here, no valid tradition occurred; Marella’s “possession” was a theft, not the delivery required

...continue reading

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.