TAGATAC v JIMENEZ

Ocampo, J.
No. 13514-R. – Feb. 22, 1957.
FACTS
● Oct. 1951: Tagatac bought a car for $4500 from Danielson and Kavarna Motors of Sta. Barbara, California
● May 27, 1952: Tagatac brought her car to the Philippines
● June 1952: Tagatac, along with her sister, Dolores, visited her friends, the Lees, in their house
 Joseph Lee introduced Tagatac to Warner Feist, who convinced petitioner that he was a millionaire
 Feist offered to buy Tagatac’s car for Php 15,000, and Tagatac agreed
● June 18, 1952: The Deed of Sale over the car was executed
 Feist paid Tagatac Php 15,000 by means of a check postdated June 19, 1952
 Tagatac delivered the car to Feist
● June 19, 1952: Tagatac tried to cash the check with PNB
 PNB refused to honor the check, as Feist has no account nor funds in the bank
 Tagatac notified all enforcement agencies, such as the Manila police, the NBI of the estafa committed
against her by Feist
o The law enforcement agencies failed to apprehend Feist
o The car itself disappeared completely
● June 28, 1952: Feist managed to have the private Deed of Sale notarized, and had the registration certificate of
the car transferred in his name
● Aug. 18, 1952: Feist sold the car to Felix Sanchez
 Sanchez had the registration certificate of the car transferred in his name
● When Sanchez offered to sell the car to respondent Jimenez, Jimenez investigated the registration certificate of
Sanchez in the Motor Vehicles Office
 Jimenez found out that everything was in order
 He bought the car from Sanchez for Php 10,000
● Aug. 21, 1952: Jimenez delivered the car to the California Car Exchange on Taft Avenue in order to have the car
displayed for sale
 Masalonga offered to sell the car
 In order to facilitate the sale, Jimenez transferred the car to Masalonga
 Unable to sell said car immediately, Masalonga transferred the car to Villanueva in order that he might
sell it for Jimenez
● Aug. 31, 1952: Tagatac discovered the car in the possession of California Car Exchange
 She demanded from the manager the delivery of her car
 California Car Exchange’s manager refused
● Sept. 3, 1952: The certificate of registration was retransferred to Jimenez
● Oct. 20, 1952: Tagatac filed a suit for the recovery of the possession of the car
● CFI of Manila dismissed Tagatac’s complaint
● Tagatac filed an appeal from the CFI decision, arguing the ff:
 Jimenez is a purchaser in bad faith of the car in question
 Estafa was committed by Feist on June 19, 1952, and the car was transferred to Jimenez on Aug. 21
o Presumption set forth in Sec. 69(j) of Rule 123 arises
o There is a presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the doer of the whole act
 Jimenez is a buyer in bad faith
o On Sept. 1, 1952, three days before the car was transferred to Jimenez, he already knew that the
car was the subject of a search warrant in a estafa case, which was dated Sept. 1, 1952
 The car should be returned to her in consonance with Art. 559 NCC

ISSUES/HELD/RATIO:
1. W/N Jimenez is a purchaser in good faith – YES

1
 ● Presumption set forth in Sec. 69(j) of Rule 123 DOES NOT arise
 The car was not stolen from Tagatac
 Jimenez came into possession of the car TWO MONTHS after Feist swindled Tagatac
o Thus, even assuming that the car was stolen, Jimenez could not have been presumed to have been
the wrongdoer as the wrongful act was done two months before the car came into his possession
● Admittedly, on Sept. 1, 1952, Jimenez was already fully-aware that there some questions regarding the car
 However, such knowledge does not constitute bad faith when the car was transferred to him a second
time on Sept. 3
 When he acquired the car on Aug. 21, 1952, he had no knowledge of any flaw in the title of Sanchez
2. W/N Tagatac was unlawfully deprived of her car – NO, Jimenez has a better right to the car
● Art. 559 NCC provides that 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 nevertheless recover it from
the person in possession of the same
● In the case at bar, there was a valid transmission of ownership from the true owner, Tagatac, to the swindler,
Feist
 There was between them a Contract of Sale by reason of which Tagatac delivered to Feist the car in
litigation
o The fraud and deceit practiced by Feist earmarks this sale as a VOIDABLE contract (Art. 1390 NCC)
 As a voidable contract, it is susceptible of either ratification or annulment
o If ratified: action to annul the contract is extinguished; contract is cleansed from all defects
o If annulled: contracting parties are restored to their situations before the contract
 However, as long as no action is taken by the party entitled, the contract of sale remains binding
● When Tagatac delivered the car to Feist by virtue of said voidable Contract of Sale, the title passed to Feist
 The title to the car delivered to Feist was defective and voidable
● When Feist sold the car to Sanchez, the former’s title had not been avoided
 Thus, Feist conferred a good title on Sanchez
o Provided that the latter bought the car in good faith, for value, and without notice of the defect in
Feist’s title (Art. 1506 NCC)
 Sanchez is presumed to have acted in good faith, as the records were bereft of proof that he acted in
bad faith
● Assuming arguendo that Sanchez was a buyer in bad faith, and he acquired from Feist merely a VOIDABLE title
to the car, Jimenez still acquired a good title to the car (Art. 1506 NCC)
 He bought the car in good faith, for value, and without notice of any defect in Sanchez’s title
 Good title: an indefeasible title to the car

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
We hereby affirm the appealed decision, without making any pronouncement respecting costs.