Title
Obana vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-36249
Decision Date
Mar 29, 1985
Sandoval delivered rice to Chan Lin, who failed to pay. Obana claimed ownership after paying Chan Lin, but the Court ruled Sandoval could recover the rice or its value, preventing unjust enrichment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-36249)

Background of the Transaction

On November 21, 1964, Aniceto Sandoval was approached by Chan Lin, who proposed to buy 170 cavans of clean rice at the price of P37.25 per cavan, with delivery scheduled for the next day to petitioner Obana's store in San Fernando, La Union. Sandoval accepted the offer, relying on his prior dealings with Obana. When the rice was delivered, Chan Lin was not present to pay, leading to a dispute where Obana claimed he paid Chan Lin P33.00 per cavan, contrary to Sandoval's terms.

Legal Proceedings and Rulings

Sandoval initiated a replevin action against Obana for the rice, resulting in an initial ruling by the Municipal Court ordering Obana to pay P2,805.00. However, upon appeal, the Court of First Instance of La Union dismissed the complaint. Sandoval then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's decision and ordered Obana to return the rice or pay its value, plus legal interest.

Arguments and Findings

Obana contended that a perfected sale existed between him and Chan Lin based on Article 1475 of the Civil Code, which states that a contract of sale is perfected when there is a meeting of minds on the subject matter and price. He further argued that ownership transferred to Chan Lin upon delivery. In contrast, the Appellate Court held that Chan Lin had no legitimate ownership as he intended to defraud Sandoval by purchasing the rice at a higher price and reselling it at a lower price. This intent demonstrated a lack of good faith in the transaction.

Credibility of Testimonies

During the appeal proceedings, Obana claimed that three days post-delivery, Chan Lin returned the purchase price to him, indicating an intention to rescind the sale. However, a driver, allegedly for Sandoval, contested this, asserting that the rice had not been returned. The court found the driver’s account more credible since it aligned with the expectation that Sandoval would withdraw the complaint had the rice been returned.

Concept of Unjust Enrichment

The decision underscored the principle of unjust enrichment, stating that Obana could not claim ownership of the rice, which legally belonged to Sandoval. The court emphasized that even if there was a rescissible title involved, Obana no longer had a legal right to

...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.