Title
Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. vs. Jalwindor Manufacturers, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-43059
Decision Date
Oct 11, 1979
Sampaguita Pictures claimed ownership of jalousies installed by Capitol, a lessee, after Capitol defaulted on payments to Jalwindor. The Supreme Court ruled Sampaguita owned the jalousies, invalidating Jalwindor's auction purchase.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-43059)

Facts

Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. owned the Sampaguita Pictures Building in Quezon City, which it leased to Capitol “300” Inc. under conditions that any permanent improvements made by Capitol would belong to Sampaguita. Capitol purchased glass and wooden jalousies from Jalwindor Manufacturers, Inc. on credit, which were subsequently installed in the leased premises. When Capitol failed to pay its debts to Jalwindor, the latter filed a collection action and obtained a compromise agreement stating the materials would serve as security for the debt.

Legal Proceedings

Capitol defaulted on its rental payments to Sampaguita, prompting the latter to file for ejectment and collection of dues. The City Court of Quezon City ruled in favor of Sampaguita, ordering Capitol to vacate and pay the owed amounts. Due to Capitol’s further defaults, Jalwindor executed a levy on the jalousies, which led to their sale at a public auction, where Jalwindor was the highest bidder.

Third-Party Claim and Initial Ruling

Sampaguita contested the Sheriff’s sale through a third-party claim asserting ownership of the jalousies. Jalwindor posted an indemnity bond, and the items were sold despite Sampaguita's claim. The lower court ruled against Sampaguita, stating that Capitol could not legally transfer ownership of the jalousies.

Legal Principles of Ownership

Ownership Transfer: According to the Civil Code of the Philippines, ownership is acquired through delivery, regardless of payment status. The lease agreement explicitly stated that improvements made by Capitol were the property of Sampaguita, thus establishing Sampaguita’s ownership prior to the levy.

Court’s Analysis

The Court underscored that ownership had passed to Sampaguita at the moment the jalousies were delivered, citing the lease terms as the legal basis. The Sheriff’s act of levying items owned by a third party (Sampaguita) was not authorized under law,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.