Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 77266 July 19, 1989
ARTHUR PAJUNAR and INENCIA PAJUNAR, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT O! APPEA"S, MAURO E"UNA and TEO!I"A E"UNA, respondents.

PARAS, J.:
his is a petition for revie! on certiorari see"in# to set aside the decision of the
Second Division of the Court of $ppeals ## in C.$. %.R. No. SP. &''() *+D, )-((.,
entitled /$rthur 0 Invencia Pa1unar v. 2on. Pedro %abaton, 3ud#e, RC, 4ranch 56I,
Ne#ros Oriental, Mauro Eluna and eofila Eluna/ for Recover7 of Personal Propert7
!ith 8rit of Replevin !hich affir9ed the Order of the aforena9ed Re#ional rial Court
of Ne#ros Oriental ### !hich reads:
his is a case of Recover7 of Personal Propert7 !ith a 8rit of
Replevin filed b7 one $rthur and Invencia Pa1unar as plaintiffs,
a#ainst one Mauro and eofila Eluna as defendants, tried and
decided b7 the Municipal Court of Siaton.
he decision is in favor of the defendants and a#ainst the plaintiffs
apparentl7 based pri9aril7 on the preponderance of evidence and
prescription.
+pon close readin# of the e;haustive 9e9orandu9 sub9itted b7
each of the parties in this case and a close perusal of all the
evidences on record and chec"in# the9 a#ainst the decision itself
appealed, this court is of the opinion and so holds that the #rounds
upon !hich this decision is based are !ell ta"en, so that there is
nothin# that this court can add neither can deduct for the sa9e
confor9s to the thin"in# of this court.
82ERE<ORE, pre9ises considered, the appealed decision of the
above=entitled case rendered b7 the Municipal Court of Siaton is
hereb7 affir9ed. *Rollo, p. >.
he facts of the case as found b7 public respondent Court of $ppeals are as follo!s:
So9eti9e in ?>@>, respondent Mauro Eluna bartered his three=7ear old 9ale co! for
one 7ear old fe9ale carabao then in the possession of $urelio Enopia. he fe9ale
carabao, !hich is the one in Auestion, bore the brand /$R/ in her front and hind le#s
at the ti9e she !as acAuired b7 Mauro. $lthou#h the ani9al !as branded, said
respondent did not or could not re#ister the transfer to hi9.
In March, ?>B&, petitioner $rthur Pa1unar learned that the disputed carabao !as in the
possession of respondent Eluna. Clai9in# that he !as the ori#inal o!ner of the
carabao !hich #ot lost in ?>)(, petitioner de9anded her return. 2e de9anded also the
deliver7 to hi9 of the t!o offsprin#s of the carabao !hich !ere five 7ears and ei#ht
9onths old at the ti9e the7 !ere re#istered in ?>B&. 8hen Eluna refused to do so
despite repeated de9ands, petitioner !ent to court to recover possession *Rollo, pp.
?&=??..
<ro9 the adverse order of the Re#ional rial Court, plaintiff appealed to public
respondent Court of $ppeals.
In its decision dated October C&, ?>B@, the Court of $ppeals affir9ed the decision of
the lo!er court, !ith appellate tribunal declarin#:
ConseAuentl7, since respondent Eluna had possessed the carabao
since ?>@>, that is, for 9ore than ten *?&. 7ears, he acAuired
o!nership b7 prescription under $rticle ??C' of the Civil Code.
$R. ??C'. he o!nership of 9ovables prescribes throu#h
uninterrupted possession for four 7ears in #ood faith.
he o!nership of personal propert7 also prescribes throu#h
uninterrupted possession for ei#ht 7ears, !ithout need of an7 other
condition.
8ith re#ard to the ri#ht of the o!ner to recover personal propert7
lost or of !hich he has been ille#all7 deprived, as !ell as !ith
respect to 9ovables acAuired in a public sale, fair or 9ar"et, or fro9
a 9erchantDs store, the provisions of articles --> and ?-&- of this
Code shall be observed. *?>--a..
On March 'C, ?>B), the Court resolved, after considerin# the pleadin#s filed b7 both
respondent and petitioner, to #ive due course to the petition.
he three assi#n9ents of error raised b7 the petitioner *Rollo, p. (. in this case, 9a7
be reduced to one 9ain issue:
8hether or not the findin#s of the lo!er court !hich !ere affir9ed b7
the Court of $ppeals are supported b7 substantial evidence.
1
Petitioner contends that private respondent Eluna has failed to establish his o!nership
of the 9estisa carabao found in his possession. Since the fe9ale carabao bears the
brand /$R/ on the fore and hind le#s of the ani9al as branded b7 petitioners before it
#ot lost *Rollo, p. (., failure of defendant Mauro Eluna to re#ister in his na9e the said
carabao, constitutes a fla! in his o!nership as reAuired b7 la! *Rollo, pp. ?&=??..
Private respondents clai9 that the fe9ale carabao has been in their possession for
9ore than ten *?&. 7ears as the sub1ect carabao !as acAuired b7 the defendants no!
respondents throu#h barter fro9 one $urelio Enopia in ?>@>. he incident !as
discovered b7 the plaintiffs onl7 in March, ?>B&. 2ence respondents acAuired
o!nership of said carabao b7 prescription under $rticle ??C' of the Civil Code *Rollo,
p. ?'. as found b7 public respondent Court of $ppeals.
he trial courtDs findin#s of facts carr7 #reat !ei#ht for havin# the advanta#e of havin#
e;a9ined the deport9ent and de9eanor of the !itnesses. he onl7 e;ception to the
rule is !hen the trial court plainl7 overloo"ed certain facts and circu9stances of !ei#ht
and influence !hich, if considered, !ill 9ateriall7 alter the result of the case *People v.
Ra9os, ?-C SCR$ ')@ E?>B)FG People v. Ca9a7, ?-' SCR$ (&? E?>B)F..
$ careful e;a9ination of the records sho!s that there are circu9stances of substance
and value !hich !ere overloo"ed and !hich affect the result of the case.
his can be #leaned fro9 the decision of the Court of $ppeals, !hen it stated:
In issuin# the fore#oin# order, the respondent 3ud#e apparentl7
relied on the findin#s of fact and conclusions of la! 9ade b7 the
Municipal Court of Siaton, Ne#ros Oriental. +nfortunatel7, the
decision of the Municipal Court was wanting in many respects
particularly in its findings. It failed, for instance, to make a
determination of certain factual matters which could have helped in
the faster disposition of the case. Instead of general statements
explaining why he was adopting the decision of the Municipal Court,
it would have been better if the respondent Judge had made his own
finding and analysis of the evidence on record. This was called for
because the respondent Judge was acting in the exercise of the
appellate urisdiction of his court. *E9phasis supplied. *Rollo, p. ?&.
8ell=settled is the rule that findin#s of facts of the $ppellate Court are #enerall7 bindin#
on this Court *People v. $tanacio, ?'B SCR$ '' E?>B(F $#uirre v. People, ?-- SCR$
CC) E?>B)FG Cue 4ie v. Inter9ediate $ppellate Court, ?-( SCR$ ->> E?>B)F.. 2o!ever,
there are e;ceptions to the #eneral rule that findin#s of facts of the Court of $ppeals
are bindin# upon the Supre9e Court as !hen the Court of $ppeals clearl7
9isconstrued and 9isapplied the la!, dra!n fro9 incorrect conclusions of fact
established b7 evidence and other!ise at certain conclusions !hich are based on
9isapprehension of facts and pure con1ectures, and 9ade inferences !hich are
9anifestl7 9ista"en and absurd *Chase v. 4uenca9ino, 3r., ?C@ SCR$ C@- E?>B-FG
4ali!a# ransit, Inc. v. C$, ?() SCR$ B' E?>B)FG International 2arvester, Inc. v. 3oson
0 C$, ?(> SCR$ @(? E?>B)FG Maclan v. Santos, ?-@ SCR$ -(' E?>B)FG MendoHa v.
C$, ?-@ SCR$ ->) E?>B)F..
<ro9 the records it is clear that althou#h the ani9al !as branded /$R/ in her front
and hind le#s at the ti9e she !as acAuired b7 respondent Mauro, said respondent did
not or could not re#ister the transfer to hi9 in accordance !ith Section -'> of the
Revised $d9inistrative Code *Rollo, p. ??..
Section -'> of the Revised $d9inistrative Code provides:
Re#istration necessar7 to validit7 of transfer. No transfer shall be
valid unless the sa9e is re#istered and a certificate of transfer
obtained as herein provided, but the lar#e cattle under t!o 7ears of
a#e 9a7 be re#istered and branded #ratis for the purpose of
effectin# a valid transfer, if the re#istration and transfer are 9ade at
the sa9e ti9e.
he records sho! that respondents did not co9pl7 !ith this reAuire9ent *Petition, p. 'G
Rollo, p. C.. Respondents are not possessors in #ood faith, as a possessor in #ood
faith is one not a!are that there e;ists in his title or 9ode of acAuisition an7 fla! !hich
invalidates it. <urther9ore, failure of a part7 to e;ercise precaution to acAuaint hi9self
!ith the defects in the title of his vendor precludes hi9 clai9in# possession in #ood
faith *Cara9 v. 6aureta, ?&C SCR$ E?>B?F cited in Manoto" Realt7, Inc. v. Court of
$ppeals, ?C( SCR$ C'- E?>B-F..
his dut7 to 9a"e a closer inAuir7 into the certificate of re#istration of the fe9ale
carabao !hich !as the sub1ect of the barter, defendant Mauro Eluna should have
perfor9ed but did not. hus, his bein# in bad faith, in acAuirin# the carabao fro9 his
vendor, $urelio Enopia.
hus, as has been stressed b7 this Court:
$ purchaser cannot close his e7es to facts !hich should put a
reasonable 9an upon his #uard, and then clai9 that he acted in
#ood faith under the belief that there !as no defect in the title of the
vendor. 2is 9ere refusal to believe that such defect e;ists, or his
!illful closin# of the e7es to the possibilit7 of the e;istence of a
defect in his vendorDs title !ill not 9a"e hi9 an innocent purchaser
for value, if it after!ards develops that the title !as in fact defective
and it appears that he had such notice of the defect !ould have led
to its discover7 had he acted !ith the 9easure of precaution !hich
9a7 reasonabl7 be reAuired of a prudent 9an in a li"e situation.
*6eun# 6ee v. Stron#, C) Phil. @((, see also E9os v. Iusuarre#ui, -C
Phil. ?>), cited in <rancisco v. Court of $ppeals, ?-C SCR$ CC&..
It is clear fro9 the fore#oin# that possession in #ood faith for four *(. 7ears is not
applicable, neither can possession in bad faith of ei#ht *B. 7ears benefit respondents,
2
for !hen the o!ner of a 9ovable has lost or has been ille#all7 deprived of his propert7
he can recover the sa9e !ithout need to rei9burse the possessor, as provided in $rt.
--> of the Civil Code !hich states:
$rt. -->. he possession of 9ovable propert7 acAuired in #ood faith
is eAuivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one !ho has lost an7 9ovable
or has been unla!full7 deprived thereof, 9a7 recover it fro9 the
person in possession of the sa9e.
If the possessor of a 9ovable lost or of !hich the o!ner has been
unla!full7 deprived, has acAuired it in #ood faith at a public sale, the
o!ner cannot obtain its return !ithout rei9bursin# the price paid
therefor. *(@(a.
Neither can $rt. )?@ of the Civil Code appl7, for this article evidentl7 refers to a
possessor in #ood faith. $rt. )?@ sa7:
he o!ner of a s!ar9 of bees shall have a ri#ht to pursue the9 to
anotherDs land, inde9nif7in# the possessor of the latter for the
da9a#e. If the o!ner has not pursued the s!ar9, or ceases to do so
!ithin t!o consecutive da7s, the possessor of the land 9a7 occup7
or retain the sa9e. he o!ner of do9esticated ani9als 9a7 also
clai9 the9 !ithin t!ent7 da7s to be counted fro9 their occupation
b7 another person. his period havin# e;pired, the7 shall pertain to
hi9 !ho has cau#ht and "ept the9. *@?'a.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of $ppeals in C$=%.R. SP No.
&''() is REVERSED and SE $SIDE and petitioners $rthur Pa1unar and Invencia
Pa1unar are declared the o!ners of the carabaos in Auestion.
SO ORDERED.
3