Pedro Endeisa v. Facts: Issue: Who is the rightful owner of the Lorcha?

Jose Taleon Case:

 Endeisa alleged the ff:
 He is the owner of a Lorcha named Leal RULING: Pedro Endeisa
 Jesua Laurenao (defendant) in a suit brought by her Admitting that Rivera was in possession of the Lorcha, as in
against Luis Rivera, secured the attachment of the reality he was when it was attached and sold, the record
Lorcha as being the property of Rivera and sold it at contains no proof as to when the said possession commenced
public auction. and how it was acquired. And while in accordance with par. 2
of art. 537 of the code of commerce, the ownership of a vessel
 Jose Taleon (defendant) as deputy sheriff levied the
may be acquired by possession, such possession must be in
Lorcha and sold it at public auction good faith, continued for 3 years and with good title duly
 Before the Lorcha was sold at public auction, Endeisa recorded. None of these requisites have been proven to
notified Taleon that the Lorcha did not belong to Rivera support Rivera’s possession.
and that it actually belonged to him (Endeisa) but
despite such notice, Taleon still sold it at auction. Therefore there are no grounds to sustain the judgment
appealed from. The court thus reverses the judgment appealed
 Juan de Leon bought the Lorcha at auction.
from and rules in favor of Endeisa.
 That because of the sale, Endeisa was unlawfully
deprived of his property.
 Therefore Endeisa asks that the sale be declared void,
that he is the owner of the property, that the
defendants deliver the property to him.

RTC to which the case was heard made the ff finding of facts:
- Jesusa Barriosa, legal administratix of the estate of
deceased Elorriaga, had been authorized to sell at
public auction the Lorcha .
- Luis Rivera bought the Lorcha at the auction but since
he was Spanish and could not register the vessel in his
own name, it became the property of Rivera & Watkins,
company in which Rivera was a member
- Upon dissolution of the partnership, Rivera took the
Lorcha was part of his share and kept the same until it
was attached and sold.

Proven facts:
 The Lorcha, which is the subject of the case, was
formerly owned by Francisco Elorriaga. After Elorriaga’s
death, Jesusa Barriosa (his widow) solicited authority
from the RTC of Iloilo to sell all the personal property
pertaining to the inheritance, either in a public or
 private sale, which was granted.
 Jesusa Barriosa, as owner of ½ of the Lorcha and
judicial administratrix of the remaining portion on
behalf of the intestate estate of Elorriaga, sold the
same to Agustin Asesnsio for $1,800 (Mexican
currency).
- document evidencing this sale was at first rejected
but was acknowledged at trial by the purchaser, Asensio who
was asked “Is it not true that the lorcha was placed in your
name for the reason that you are an American citizen, and that
it was not placed in Rivera’s name because Rivera is not an
American citizen?" He answered: "No, sir; it was placed in my
name because I was the purchaser”

 Asensio sold the Lorcha to Francisco Zulueta for Php

2,000 under an instrument executed before notary
public.
 Zuleuta then sold it to Pedro Endeisa for Php2,500 in
the same manner.

My understanding of the case:

The case at bar involves a dispute over the ownership
of a Lorcha. As found by the trial court, the lorcha
formerly belonged to Francisco Elorriaga. After his
death, his widow decided to sell the boat. After a
series of sales, it eventually ended up with Pedro
Endeisa. Meanwhile, Jesusa Laureano secured the
attachment of the lorcha as being property of Luis
Rivera. It was sold at public auction by the Sheriff
Jose Taleon despite notice from Pedro Endeisa that
the lorcha belonged to him. Hence, the present suit
filed by Endeisa claiming ownership over the lorcha.
Luis Rivera claims that he is the owner of the boat
since he was the one in possession and not Endeisa.