ANGELO
Case No. 29
Title as to Movable Properties
Tagatac v. Jimenez
FACTS: Tagatac sold her car to Feist, who sold it to Sanchez, who sold it to Jimenez, who bought it in
good faith and for value. When the payment check issued to Tagatac by Feist was dishonored. Tagatac
sued to recover the vehicle from Jimenez on the ground that she had been unlawfully deprived of it
by reason of Feist's deception. Subsequently, Feist was convicted for Estafa.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagatac can revert the title of thing sold to her.
RULING: NO. The Court held that Tagatac cannot be deemed to have been lawfully deprived of the
vehicle since the failure of Feist to pay the purchase price of the vehicle or the issuance of a bad check
for its price did not or could not affect the validity of the transfer of title of Jimenez who acquired
the car in good faith.
At the most, it would give Tagatac a right to rescind the contract, but the title to the thing sold would
not revert to the seller until the sale has been set aside by a competent court . Until that is done, the
rights of Jimenez who is in good faith, acquired before resolution of the contract are entitled to
protection.
Deceit or Fraud do not render the contract void but merely voidable, when delivery was effected
pursuant to such voidable contract, tradition effectively and legally transferred ownership to the
buyer, even though he was a deceitful person.
ANGELO
Case No. 30
Title as to Movable Properties
EDCA Publishing & Distributing Corporation v. Santos
FACTS: EDCA Publishing sold 406 books to a certain Professor Jose Cruz who ordered these through
telephone, which was agreed to be payable on delivery. An impostor identifying himself as a professor
obtained the delivery of books from EDCA and for which he issued a check that subsequently
bounced. The impostor sold the books to Santos, who bought them in good faith and for value.
ISSUE: Whether or not Santos’ possession of books acquired in good faith is equivalent to title.
RULING: YES. Santos do not have to establish his ownership over the books because his possession in
good faith is equivalent to title. EDCA was not unlawfully deprived of the books because non-payment
of the price by the impostor, although amounting to fraud, did not constitute unlawful deprivation but
merely vitiation of consent as to make the contract voidable; but so long as the contract has not been
annulled, it remained valid, and the subsequent sale and delivery to the books to Santos effectively
transferred ownership to Santos.
Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal
prosecution in the case of bouncing checks.