Aznar v Yapdiangco

G.R. No. L-18536, March 31, 1965

FACTS: Theodoro Santos advertised in the newspapers the sale of his Ford Fairlane
500. After the advertisement, a certain de Dios, claiming to be the nephew of Marella,
went to the residence of Santos and expressing his uncle’s intent to purchase the car.
Since Santos wasn't around, it was Irineo who talked with de Dios. On being informed,
Santos advised his son to see
Marella, which the son did. Marella expressed his intention to purchase the car. A deed
of sale was prepared and Irineo was instructed by his father not to part with the deed
and the car without receiving the purchase price from Marella. When Irineo and De Dios
arrived at the residence of Marella, the latter averred that his money was short and had
to borrow from his sister. He then instructed de Dios and Irineo to go the supposed
house of the sister to obtain the money with an unidentified person. He also asked
Irineo to leave the deed to have his lawyer see it.

Relying on the good faith of Marella, Irineo did as requested. Upon arriving at the house
of Marella’s supposed to be sister, de Dios and the unidentified person then
disappeared together with the car. This prompted Santos to report the incident to the
authorities. Thereafter, Marella was able to sell the land to Aznar. And while in
possession of the car, police authorities confiscated the same. This prompted Aznar to
file an action for replevin.

ISSUE: WON Theodoro has a better right over Aznar

RULING: YES. Marella never had title to the car as the car wasn't ever delivered to him.
While there was a deed of sale in his favor, he was only able to obtain possession of the
car since he stole it from Santos. The applicable law is Article 559. The rule is to the
effect that if the owner has lost a thing, or if he has been unlawfully deprived of it, he
has a right to recover it, not only from its finder, thief or robber, but also from third
persons who may have acquired it in good faith from such finder, thief or
robber.

The said article establishes 2 exceptions to the general rule of irrevindicabilty—to wit,
the owner has lost the thing or has been unlawfully deprived thereof. In these cases, the
possessor cannot retain the thing as against the owner who may recover it without
paying any indemnity, except when the possessor acquired it in a public sale.
Furthermore, the common law principle that where one of two innocent persons must
suffer a fraud perpetrated by another, the law  imposes the loss upon the party who, by
his misplaced confidence, has enable the fraud to be committed, cannot be applied in
this case, which is covered by an express provision of law.