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 Summary (G.R. No. L-30871)

Facts of the Transaction and Trial Court Proceedings

On September 20, 1979, Nepales entered into a contract to purchase a brand-new Yamaha Wonderbike (Model YL2DX) from Norkis-Bacolod for ₱7,500. Payment was to be secured by a Letter of Guaranty from DBP, Kabankalan Branch, and by a chattel mortgage on the motorcycle. Norkis issued Sales Invoice No. 0120, which Nepales signed, but retained physical possession of the unit. On November 6, 1979, the motorcycle was registered in Nepales’s name and registration fees were paid by him. Delivery allegedly occurred on January 22, 1980, to Julian Nepales, whom Alberto Nepales denies authorized as his agent. On February 3, 1980, while driven by Payba, the motorcycle was involved in a total wreck and thereafter stored in Norkis’s warehouse. DBP released the ₱7,500 proceeds on March 20, 1980, and Nepales paid an additional ₱328 for the increased price. When Norkis failed to deliver a functional unit, Nepales sued for specific performance with damages (Civil Case No. 1272).

The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment for Nepales, awarding the present value of the destroyed motorcycle (or replacement), interest, exemplary damages of ₱1,000, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed but deleted the daily damages.

Issue

Whether ownership—hence the risk of loss—had passed to Nepales before the accident, thereby shifting responsibility for the destroyed motorcycle to him, or whether Norkis remained the owner and bore the risk under Article 1496 of the Civil Code.

Applicable Law

• Civil Code of the Philippines (1987):
– Article 1475 (perfection of contract)
– Article 1262 (risk of loss after perfection if thing is determinate)
– Article 1263 (generic things)
– Article 1174 (fortuitous event)
– Article 1496 (risk remains with seller until ownership transfer)
• Doctrine of res perit domino (thing perishes, loss is borne by its owner)

Analysis on Delivery and Transfer of Ownership

Actual delivery requires placing the object in the vendee’s control coupled with the intention to transfer. Constructive delivery—symbolic acts such as a public instrument—also demands that the vendor have the power to effect material delivery at the time of sale. Here:

  1. Sales Invoice: Serves as billing evidence, not a bill of sale; no intent to transfer ownership merely by invoicing.
  2. Registration: Done to secure the chattel mortgage required by DBP, not to vest Nepales with ownership or dominion.
  3. Alleged Agent Delivery: Nepales denied authorizing Julian to accept delivery; Payba’s possession is unexplained and uncontrolled by Nepales.

The absence of intention to transfer possession, together with Norkis’s continued control, negates any actual or constructive delivery.

Determination of Risk of Los

...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.