1. SALE BY ONE NOT THE TRUE OWNER; INNOCENT PURCHASED FOR VALUE. — A cash register was sold for a fixed price and the vendee made a part payment thereon, but it was orally agreed that title should not pass until final payment was made. Subsequently the purchaser sold out his business, and, upon his certificate that the register still belonged to the original vendor, the latter sold it to the plaintiff, but the machine was still allowed to remain in the hands of the vendee of the original purchaser. Thereafter the person who bought out the place of business resold the register to another person, into whose possession the same passed, and who in turn transferred it to the defendant. The latter was a purchaser in good faith, but as he acquired the register from one who was not the owner, and who had knowledge of the true ownership: Held, That the plaintiff is unconditionally entitled to the possession of the machine.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, awarding to the plaintiff the possession of a National Cash Register or payment of its value, P300, but providing further that the defendant might retain the register upon the payment of P195 and become its owner.

One Myer Harris, the owner of a cash register, sold it for P330 to Louis Heymann, who paid down P140, leaving a balance of P190, it being orally agreed that title to the’ property should not pass until the final payment of the purchase price. Thereafter, Harris being about to depart for Iloilo, demanded the balance of the money and Heymann, being unable to pay it, made an offer to return the register, which was accepted, the machine, however, being left in the place of business of Heymann, who was then selling out to one Mrs. Booth. Thereupon Harris sold the register for P195 to Carl Hess, Heymann certifying in writing that Harris was the owner. Hess thereafter sold it to the plaintiff, Olsen.

In the meantime, the register remained in the place of business which Heymann had sold out to Mrs. Booth, who in turn sold the business to George M. Lack, who transferred it to this defendant. Of the previous history of the cash register, and of the claims thereto of Harris, Hess, and Olsen, these owners of the business all had knowledge, with the exception of Yearsley. He was a buyer in good faith, and, if he had bought from the true owner, would have brought himself under the protection of article 1473 of the Civil Code, providing that, when a thing is sold to different buyers, the property goes to him who first obtains possession. He bought it, however, from a person who was not the owner and who had knowledge of the true ownership. Therefore his defense can not prevail. The plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the possession of this machine, without any qualification obliging him to make further payment therefor, or to surrender the machine upon payment to be made by the defendant.

So much of the judgment of the Court of First Instance as declares the plaintiff the owner of the machine and awards it to him, is affirmed, and the remainder of the judgment is reversed, without costs of either instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.