EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-11108. June 30, 1958. ]
CHUA HAI, Petitioner, v. HON. RUPERTO KAPUNAN, JR. as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and ONG SHU, Respondents.
Pedro Panganiban y Tolentino for Petitioner.
German Lee for respondent Ong Shu.
SYLLABUS
1. POSSESSION; CHATTELS; RIGHTS OF POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH. — The acquirer and possessor in good faith of a chattel or movable property is entitled to be respected and protected in his possession, as if he were the true owner thereof, until a competent court rules otherwise. Being considered, in the meantime, as the true owner, the possessor in good faith can not be compelled to surrender possession or be required to institute an action for the recovery of the chattel, whether or not an indemnity bond is issued in his favor.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; FILING OF INFORMATION THAT CHATTEL WAS OBTAINED THEN ESTAFA; EFFECT OF POSSESSION. — The filing of an information charging that the chattel was illegally obtained through estafa from its true owner by the transferor of the bona fide possessor does not warrant distributing the possession of the chattel against the will of the possessor, and the judge taking cognizance of the case has no right to interfere with the possession of the latter, who is not a party to the criminal proceedings and such unwarranted interference is not made justifiable by requiring a bond to answer for damage caused to the possessor.
3. RESTITUTION; WHEN LIABILITY OF OFFENDER TO MAKE RESTITUTION ARISES. — The civil liability of the offender to make restitution, under Art. 105 of the Revised Penal Code, does not arise until his criminal liability is finally declared, since the former is a consequence of the latter.
4. SALE; CHATTELS; TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP; FAILURE OF VENDEE TO PAY PRICE; EFFECT OF. — The delivery of the goods sold under a perfected contract of sale transfers title or ownership to the purchaser. The failure of the buyer to make good the price does not, in law, cause the ownership to revest in the seller until and unless the bilateral contract of sale is first rescinded or resolved pursuant to Article 1191 of the New Civil Code.
5. ID.; ID.; CONSENT OBTAINED THRU FRAUD; CONTRACT NOT VOID BUT ONLY VOIDABLE. - Where the consent of the seller is obtained through fraud or deceit, the sale is not thereby rendered void ab initio but only voidable by reason of the fraud.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; FILING OF INFORMATION THAT CHATTEL WAS OBTAINED THEN ESTAFA; EFFECT OF POSSESSION. — The filing of an information charging that the chattel was illegally obtained through estafa from its true owner by the transferor of the bona fide possessor does not warrant distributing the possession of the chattel against the will of the possessor, and the judge taking cognizance of the case has no right to interfere with the possession of the latter, who is not a party to the criminal proceedings and such unwarranted interference is not made justifiable by requiring a bond to answer for damage caused to the possessor.
3. RESTITUTION; WHEN LIABILITY OF OFFENDER TO MAKE RESTITUTION ARISES. — The civil liability of the offender to make restitution, under Art. 105 of the Revised Penal Code, does not arise until his criminal liability is finally declared, since the former is a consequence of the latter.
4. SALE; CHATTELS; TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP; FAILURE OF VENDEE TO PAY PRICE; EFFECT OF. — The delivery of the goods sold under a perfected contract of sale transfers title or ownership to the purchaser. The failure of the buyer to make good the price does not, in law, cause the ownership to revest in the seller until and unless the bilateral contract of sale is first rescinded or resolved pursuant to Article 1191 of the New Civil Code.
5. ID.; ID.; CONSENT OBTAINED THRU FRAUD; CONTRACT NOT VOID BUT ONLY VOIDABLE. - Where the consent of the seller is obtained through fraud or deceit, the sale is not thereby rendered void ab initio but only voidable by reason of the fraud.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Certiorari against an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Ruperto Kapunan, Jr. presiding, ordering the return to the complainant in criminal case No. 34250, People v. Roberto Soto, of 100 sheets of galvanized iron roofing which had been sold by the accused in said case to petitioner herein, Chua Hai. The order is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Counsel for the complainant in this case seeks the return of the 700 sheets of galvanized iron now with the Manila Police Department which form part of the hardware materials involved in this case. Chua Hai, one of the persons who purchased from the accused one hundred (100) pieces of the said galvanized iron sheets, opposes the said motion on the ground that the question of ownership should be determined in the proper proceedings, claiming that he has a valid title to the 100 pieces, having bought them from the accused Roberto Soto on February 1, 1956. Roberto Soto is presently at large, his arrest having been ordered by this Court on June 13, 1956, for failure to appear for trial.
"Considering the provisions of Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code, the said 700 sheets, except five of them which are to be retained for purposes of evidence, are hereby ordered returned to the complainant, subject, however, to the condition that the complainant post a bond in an amount equal to twice the value of 100 sheets in favor of Chua Hai who has a claim of ownership to the said 100 sheets, and without prejudice on the part of said Chua Hai to file the corresponding action on the matter of ownership thereof by virtue of his purchase from the herein accused."cralaw virtua1aw library
From the facts alleged in the pleadings presented in this case, we gather the following: On January 31, 1956, Roberto Soto purchased from Youngstown Hardware, owned by Ong Shu, 700 corrugated galvanized iron sheets and 249 pieces of round iron bar for P6,137.70, and in payment thereof he issued a check drawn against the Security Bank and Trust Company for P7,000.00, without informing Ong Shu that he had no sufficient funds in said bank to answer for the same. When the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Soto sold 165 sheets in Pangasinan and 535 sheets in Calapan, Mindoro. Of those sold in Pangasinan, 100 were sold to petitioner Chua Hai. When the case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Roberto Soto, for estafa, the offended party filed a petition asking that the 700 galvanized iron sheets, which were deposited with the Manila Police Department, be returned to him, as owner of the Youngstown Hardware. Petitioner herein opposed the motion with respect to the 100 sheets that he had bought from Soto. Notwithstanding the opposition, the court ordered the return of the galvanized iron sheets to Ong Shu. Petitioner then presented a motion to reconsider the order, alleging that by the return thereof to the offended party, the court had not only violated the contract of deposit, because it was in that concept that petitioner had delivered the 100 sheets to the Manila Police Department, and that said return to Ong Shu amounted to a deprivation of his property without due process of law. It is also claimed that Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code, under whose authority the return was ordered, can be invoked only after the termination of the criminal case and not while said criminal case is still pending trial.
The court having given no heed to these protests on the part of the petitioner, the latter brought the present petition to this Court alleging that the order of the respondent judge constitutes a deprivation of petitioner’s property without due process of law, violating the contract of deposit under which the sheets were delivered to the police department of the City of Manila, and determining the respective rights of petitioner and respondent Ong Shu without a previous trial of the criminal case — all of which constitute a grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction. In answer to the petition, it is claimed that as respondent Ong Shu is the owner of the property, he has the right to recover possession thereof even if said property appears to have fallen into the possession of a third party who acquired it by legal means, provided that said form of acquisition is not that provided for in Article 464 of the Civil Code (where property has been pledged in a monte de piedad established under authority of the Government); that even if the property was acquired in good faith, the owner who has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person in possession of the same unless a person in possession acquired it in good faith at a public sale. (Art. 559, Civil Code of the Philippines). It is also claimed that under the provisions of Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code, under which restitution is made by a return of the thing itself whenever possible, the galvanized iron sheets in question should be returned to the offended party, the owner, and that there is no provision of law requiring that the criminal case must first be finally disposed of before restitution of the goods swindled can be ordered returned to the owner. In answer to the allegation that petitioner has been deprived of his property without due process of law, it is alleged that same is without foundation because the petitioner was given ample time to be heard. As to the claim that the galvanized iron sheets in question were deposited with the Manila Police Department, it is argued that the delivery to the Manila Police Department was by virtue of the order of the court, because the said sheets were the subject of or are the instruments of the commission of the crime of estafa, and the court had the power to order the return thereof to the owner after it had satisfied itself of the ownership thereof by the offended party. It is also alleged in defense that petitioner’s rights, if any, are sufficiently protected by the bond that the court has required to be filed.
We find the case meritorious, since petitioner’s good faith is not questioned. To deprive the possessor in good faith, even temporarily and provisionally, of the chattels possessed, violates the rule of Art. 559 of the Civil Code. The latter declares that possession of chattels in good faith is equivalent to title; i.e., that for all intents and purposes, the possessor is the owner, until ordered by the proper court to restore the thing to the one who was illegally deprived thereof. Until such decree is rendered (and it can not be rendered in a criminal proceeding in which the possessor is not a party), the possessor, as presumptive owner, is entitled to hold and enjoy the thing; and "every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court." (Art. 539, New Civil Code).
The decision of the court below, instead of conforming to Arts. 559 and 539 of the Civil Code, directs the possessor to surrender the chattel to the claimant Ong Shu before the latter has proved that he was illegally deprived thereof, without taking into account that the mere filing of a criminal action for estafa is no proof that estafa was in fact committed. Instead of regarding the possessor as the owner of the chattel until illegal deprivation is shown, the court below regards the possessor of the chattel not as an owner, but as a usurper, and compels him to surrender possession even before the illegal deprivation is proved. We see no warrant for such a reversal of legal rules.
It can not be assumed at this stage of the proceedings that respondent Ong Shu is still the owner of the property; to do so it take for granted that the estafa was in fact committed, when so far, the trial on the merits has not even started, and the presumption of innocence holds full sway.
In the third place, the civil liability of the offender to make restitution, under Art. 105 of the Revised Penal Code, does not arise until his criminal liability is finally declared, since the former is a consequence of the latter. Art. 105 of the Revised Penal Code, therefore, can not be invoked to justify the order of the court below, since that very article recognizes the title of an innocent purchaser when it says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"ART. 105. Restitution — . . .
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person who may be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery." (R.P.C.) (Emphasis supplied)
The last paragraph of Article 105 plainly refers to those cases where recovery is denied by the civil law, notwithstanding the fact that the former owner was deprived of his chattels through crime. One of these cases is that provided for in Art. 85 of the Code of Commerce:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"ART. 85. — La compra de mercaderias en almacenes o tiendas abiertas al publico causara prescripcion de derecho a favor del comprador respecto de las mercaderias adquiridas, quedando a salvo en su caso los derechos del propietario de los objetos vendidos para ejercitar las acciones civiles o criminales que puedan corresponderle contra el que los vendiere indebidamente. (Civ. 464)
Para los efectos de esta prescripcion, se reputaran almacenes o tiendas abiertas al publico:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1.
"Counsel for the complainant in this case seeks the return of the 700 sheets of galvanized iron now with the Manila Police Department which form part of the hardware materials involved in this case. Chua Hai, one of the persons who purchased from the accused one hundred (100) pieces of the said galvanized iron sheets, opposes the said motion on the ground that the question of ownership should be determined in the proper proceedings, claiming that he has a valid title to the 100 pieces, having bought them from the accused Roberto Soto on February 1, 1956. Roberto Soto is presently at large, his arrest having been ordered by this Court on June 13, 1956, for failure to appear for trial.
"Considering the provisions of Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code, the said 700 sheets, except five of them which are to be retained for purposes of evidence, are hereby ordered returned to the complainant, subject, however, to the condition that the complainant post a bond in an amount equal to twice the value of 100 sheets in favor of Chua Hai who has a claim of ownership to the said 100 sheets, and without prejudice on the part of said Chua Hai to file the corresponding action on the matter of ownership thereof by virtue of his purchase from the herein accused."cralaw virtua1aw library
From the facts alleged in the pleadings presented in this case, we gather the following: On January 31, 1956, Roberto Soto purchased from Youngstown Hardware, owned by Ong Shu, 700 corrugated galvanized iron sheets and 249 pieces of round iron bar for P6,137.70, and in payment thereof he issued a check drawn against the Security Bank and Trust Company for P7,000.00, without informing Ong Shu that he had no sufficient funds in said bank to answer for the same. When the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Soto sold 165 sheets in Pangasinan and 535 sheets in Calapan, Mindoro. Of those sold in Pangasinan, 100 were sold to petitioner Chua Hai. When the case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Roberto Soto, for estafa, the offended party filed a petition asking that the 700 galvanized iron sheets, which were deposited with the Manila Police Department, be returned to him, as owner of the Youngstown Hardware. Petitioner herein opposed the motion with respect to the 100 sheets that he had bought from Soto. Notwithstanding the opposition, the court ordered the return of the galvanized iron sheets to Ong Shu. Petitioner then presented a motion to reconsider the order, alleging that by the return thereof to the offended party, the court had not only violated the contract of deposit, because it was in that concept that petitioner had delivered the 100 sheets to the Manila Police Department, and that said return to Ong Shu amounted to a deprivation of his property without due process of law. It is also claimed that Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code, under whose authority the return was ordered, can be invoked only after the termination of the criminal case and not while said criminal case is still pending trial.
The court having given no heed to these protests on the part of the petitioner, the latter brought the present petition to this Court alleging that the order of the respondent judge constitutes a deprivation of petitioner’s property without due process of law, violating the contract of deposit under which the sheets were delivered to the police department of the City of Manila, and determining the respective rights of petitioner and respondent Ong Shu without a previous trial of the criminal case — all of which constitute a grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction. In answer to the petition, it is claimed that as respondent Ong Shu is the owner of the property, he has the right to recover possession thereof even if said property appears to have fallen into the possession of a third party who acquired it by legal means, provided that said form of acquisition is not that provided for in Article 464 of the Civil Code (where property has been pledged in a monte de piedad established under authority of the Government); that even if the property was acquired in good faith, the owner who has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person in possession of the same unless a person in possession acquired it in good faith at a public sale. (Art. 559, Civil Code of the Philippines). It is also claimed that under the provisions of Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code, under which restitution is made by a return of the thing itself whenever possible, the galvanized iron sheets in question should be returned to the offended party, the owner, and that there is no provision of law requiring that the criminal case must first be finally disposed of before restitution of the goods swindled can be ordered returned to the owner. In answer to the allegation that petitioner has been deprived of his property without due process of law, it is alleged that same is without foundation because the petitioner was given ample time to be heard. As to the claim that the galvanized iron sheets in question were deposited with the Manila Police Department, it is argued that the delivery to the Manila Police Department was by virtue of the order of the court, because the said sheets were the subject of or are the instruments of the commission of the crime of estafa, and the court had the power to order the return thereof to the owner after it had satisfied itself of the ownership thereof by the offended party. It is also alleged in defense that petitioner’s rights, if any, are sufficiently protected by the bond that the court has required to be filed.
We find the case meritorious, since petitioner’s good faith is not questioned. To deprive the possessor in good faith, even temporarily and provisionally, of the chattels possessed, violates the rule of Art. 559 of the Civil Code. The latter declares that possession of chattels in good faith is equivalent to title; i.e., that for all intents and purposes, the possessor is the owner, until ordered by the proper court to restore the thing to the one who was illegally deprived thereof. Until such decree is rendered (and it can not be rendered in a criminal proceeding in which the possessor is not a party), the possessor, as presumptive owner, is entitled to hold and enjoy the thing; and "every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court." (Art. 539, New Civil Code).
The decision of the court below, instead of conforming to Arts. 559 and 539 of the Civil Code, directs the possessor to surrender the chattel to the claimant Ong Shu before the latter has proved that he was illegally deprived thereof, without taking into account that the mere filing of a criminal action for estafa is no proof that estafa was in fact committed. Instead of regarding the possessor as the owner of the chattel until illegal deprivation is shown, the court below regards the possessor of the chattel not as an owner, but as a usurper, and compels him to surrender possession even before the illegal deprivation is proved. We see no warrant for such a reversal of legal rules.
It can not be assumed at this stage of the proceedings that respondent Ong Shu is still the owner of the property; to do so it take for granted that the estafa was in fact committed, when so far, the trial on the merits has not even started, and the presumption of innocence holds full sway.
In the third place, the civil liability of the offender to make restitution, under Art. 105 of the Revised Penal Code, does not arise until his criminal liability is finally declared, since the former is a consequence of the latter. Art. 105 of the Revised Penal Code, therefore, can not be invoked to justify the order of the court below, since that very article recognizes the title of an innocent purchaser when it says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"ART. 105. Restitution — . . .
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person who may be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery." (R.P.C.) (Emphasis supplied)
The last paragraph of Article 105 plainly refers to those cases where recovery is denied by the civil law, notwithstanding the fact that the former owner was deprived of his chattels through crime. One of these cases is that provided for in Art. 85 of the Code of Commerce:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"ART. 85. — La compra de mercaderias en almacenes o tiendas abiertas al publico causara prescripcion de derecho a favor del comprador respecto de las mercaderias adquiridas, quedando a salvo en su caso los derechos del propietario de los objetos vendidos para ejercitar las acciones civiles o criminales que puedan corresponderle contra el que los vendiere indebidamente. (Civ. 464)
Para los efectos de esta prescripcion, se reputaran almacenes o tiendas abiertas al publico:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1.
