Lara vs.

del Rosario
94 Phil 778 / Preliminary Title
Publication Civil Code
Lara et al were former taxi drivers of the defendant. When the latter sold some of his vehicles, the
plaintiffs who were no longer needed were dismissed. Because their employer did not give them
their one months salary in lieu of the notice required in Article 3! of the "ode of "ommerce, this
action was instituted.
ISSUE: Whether or not the #ew "ivil "ode too$ effect on August 3, %&'&.
HELD: (n this case, the )upreme "ourt in an o*iter dictum held that the new "ivil "ode of the
+hilippines too$ effect on August 3, %&,. -his date is exactly one year after the .fficial /a0ette
pu*lishing the "ode was released for circulation, the said release having *een made on August 3,
%&'&. -he plaintiffs then are not entitled to any compensation, the #ew "ivil "ode having repealed
the "ode of "ommerce.
CRUZ V. PAHATI
98 PHIL 788
FACTS:
The car in dispute was originally owned by Northern Motors and was subsequently purchased by a
Chinaman. This Chinaman then sold it to Belizo, who in turn sold the same to Cruz. Belizo was a
second-hand car dealer. He ofered to Cruz that he would sell the car to a prospective buyer and
since the car registration was missing, Cruz issued an authorization letter to Belizo to obtain another
certifcate, at the insinuation of the latter. The car was also turned over to Belizo. The letter was then
falsifed by Belizo and converted into an absolute deed of sale. Because of this, he was able to
secure a car registration in his name and was later able to sell the car to Balahan who then sold the
car to Pahati. This prompted Cruz to fle an action for replevin.
HELD:
One who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of a movable may recover the same from the
person in possession of the same and the only defense the latter may have is if he has acquired it in
good faith at a public sale in which case the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the
price paid therefore. This is supplemented by the provision stating that
where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who doesn't sell them under
authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the
seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the sellers
authority to sell. Cruz has a better right to the car in question than Bulahan or Pahati. He has the
right to recover the car as he was unlawfully deprived of it due to the ingenious scheme employed by
Belizo. This is the case even if Bulahan or Pahati acted in good faith.