Tagatac v. Jimenez

TRINIDAD TAGATAC v. LIBERATO JIMENEZ

1957 / Ocampo / Appeal from CFI judgment

Trinidad Tagatac bought a car for $4,500 in the US, and seven months later, she brought the car to the Philippines. When her friend Joseph Lee came to see her, he was with one Warner Feist who posed as a wealthy man. Seeing that Tagatac seemed to believe him, he offered to buy her car for P15,000, and Tagatac was amenable to the idea. The deed of sale was made, Feist paid by means of a postdated check, and the car was delivered to Feist. When Tagatac tried to encash the check, PNB refused to honor it and told her that Feist had no account in said bank. Tagatac notified the law enforcement agencies of the estafa committed on her by Feist, but he was not apprehended and the car disappeared.

Meanwhile, Feist managed to have the private deed of sale notarized, so he succeeded in having the car’s registration certificate [RC] transferred in his name. He sold the car to Sanchez, who was able to transfer the RC to his name. He offered to sell the car to defendant Liberato Jimenez, who bought the car for P10,000 after investigating in the Motor Vehicles Office. Jimenez delivered the car to the California Car Exchange so that it may be displayed for sale. Masalonga offered to sell the car for Jimenez, so the car was transferred to the former, but when Masalonga failed to sell it right away, he transferred it to Villanueva so he could sell it for Jimenez. Tagatac discovered that the car was in California Car Exchange’s possession, so she demanded from the manager for the delivery of the car, but the latter refused. The RC was retransferred to Jimenez.

Tagatac filed a suit for the recovery of the car’s possession, and the sheriff, pursuant to a warrant of seizure that Tagatac obtained, seized and impounded the car, but it was delivered back to Jimenez upon his filing of a counter-bond. The lower court held that Jimenez had the right of ownership and possession over the car.

JIMENEZ IS A PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH; TAGATAC NOT ENTITLED TO POSSESSION

RATIO

The disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act does NOT apply in this case because the car was not stolen from Tagatac, and Jimenez came into possession of the car two months after Feist swindled Tagatac. In addition, when Jimenez acquired the car, he had no knowledge of any flaw in the title of the person from whom he acquired it. It was only later that he became fully aware that there were some questions regarding the car, when he filed a petition to dissolve Tagatac’s search warrant which had as its subject the car in question.

Re: Tagatac’s allegation that the lower court ignored the judgment convicting Feist of estafa, and that it erred in not declaring that restitution of the swindled property must follow, SHE IS WRONG! The lower court noted that Feist was accused of estafa because of the check and NOT because of the delivery of the car.

Her legal basis for the restitution of thing is RPC 104-5¹ . Now the question is WON she has beenunlawfully deprived of her car. It seems like though, but it does not fall under the scope of NCC 599. ²In this case, there is a valid transmission of ownership from true owner [Tagatac] to the swindler [Feist], considering that they had a contract of sale.

As long as no action is taken by the entitled party [annulment / ratification], the contract of sale remains valid and binding. Feist acquired defective and voidable title, but when he sold it to Sanchez, he conferred a good title on the latter. Jimenez bought the car from Sanchez in good faith, for value, and without notice of any defect in Sanchez’ title, so he acquired a good title to the car. Good title means an indefeasible title to the car, even as against original owner Tagatac. As between two innocent parties, the one whose acts made possible the injury must shoulder the consequences thereof.

-------------------------

¹ Civil liability of person who is criminally liable includes restitution of thing even though it is with a third person who acquired it legally
² Although possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person who possesses it.