(Sgd.) "SILVESTRE REBOTICA.
"GREGORIA STO. DOMINGO.’
Notwithstanding the statement in this document Exhibit C that the selling price of the still was P500 and that this sum was paid in the act by Easton to the vendor Parlade, they both testified at the trial that the value of the still was credited on account of a larger sum which Parlade owed Easton (record, pp. 5 and 14) and, while Easton maintained that the purchase price was P500 (p. 5), Parlade insisted that it was only P450 (p. 14).
In order to show that the evidence adduced by both parties was weighed justly and in accordance with the rules of sound judgment and common sense, we shall insert hereinbelow the essential parts of the testimony of the witnesses who testified at the trial of this case.
The plaintiff testified that in December, 1912, he had gone to Ligao to obtain some ilang-ilang essence, and, having talked with Parlade concerning the business of distilling this flower, he decided that same day to acquire the still in question; that Parlade ordered to sell it to him for P500; that after agreeing upon the terms of the sale, it was stipulated that this sum should be deducted from the amount which Parlade then owed him, the vendor to have charge of the management of and to superintend the running of the still in the pueblo of Ligao; that the still needed repairs and when they had been made it was removed to a building rented by Smith, Bell & Co., where the still was put in operation in September, 1913; that in December, 1912, and in February, 1913, Parlade was a mere hemp buyer in Ligao for the firm of Smith, Bell & Co. "who received from the firm money in advance with which to buy hemp," (though he subsequently said that Parlade had been appointed agent of the firm of Smith, Bell & Co., but did not remember the exact date of his appointment); and that after the sale Parlade continued to distil for witness.
Jose Parlade corroborated the statements made by the plaintiff relative to the sale of the still and further stated that the price agreed upon was P450, which was to be deducted from his debt to the purchaser, and that witness sent the deed of sale, Exhibit C, to Easton some time afterwards; that the still needed repairs and therefore the tinsmith took away the pieces that required fixing and left the rest of the apparatus in witness’ house, but he did not know why his wife, Gregoria Sto. Domingo, sent the rest of the still to the house of his storekeeper, named Pabucan; that in September, 1913, after the still had been repaired, it was installed in a house, rented by Smith, Bell & Co., which he occupied as he was this firm’s agent in Ligao; that he operated it from that time until it was attached on October 22, 1913, the distillation having been interrupted for six days; that when he sold his still on December 15, 1912, E. Diaz & Co. had not yet filed suit against him, nor had the preliminary attachment of his property been ordered; that, notwithstanding he testified in court that the still in question belonged to Easton, it was attached at the request of E. Diaz & Co.; that during the last months of 1913 the people of Ligao knew he was an agent of Smith, Bell & Co. by the sign he displayed at his place of business, though it was true that he possessed no formal appointment as Smith, Bell & Co.’s agent — notwithstanding which he was a buyer in the pueblo of Ligao for this firm.
One of the witnesses to Exhibit C, Silvestre Rebotica, testified that he saw Easton leave Parlade’s store in Ligao a few days before the festival of that pueblo in the year 1912; that this festival was held on December 25th; and that after Easton had gone out, Rebotica signed as one of the witnesses to the document marked Exhibit C.
The deputy sheriff, Lorenzo A. Duran, stated among other things that when he attached the still in question it was situated on a lot rented by Smith, Bell & Co. for its business; that Parlade’s wife, Gregoria Sto. Domingo, was the person who indicated to him the place where the still was located; and that he was sure that the still was not in operation, because Gregoria herself told him so, and be- sides because, desiring to obtain a little ilang-ilang essence he examined the apparatus and found that it was empty.
Venancio Cabada Diaz and Antonio Barberan testified that in January 25, 1913, they were in Parlade’s store in Ligao whither they had gone to ascertain whether or not the latter was selling his goods on account of the suit which E. Diaz & Co. was going to file against him; that they observed many articles had been removed from the store; that in a warehouse behind the store, they saw two complete stills, one of which, the one in litigation, belonged to Parlade and the other, which had been rented by Parlade, to the estate of Josefa Garcia Pascual. Venancio Cabada Diaz added that he owned four stills and knew at a glance whether they were or were not complete, and that he was not mistaken as to the identity of Parlade’s still found behind the latter’s store, because the witness Barberan knew Parlade’s still very well, having one exactly like it and, besides, having personally taken part in its purchase for Parlade.
Antonio Alvarez testified to the same effect as the witnesses Venancio Cabada Diaz and Antonio Barberan, namely, that as the result of a storm which passed over Ligao in October, 1913, all the ilang-ilang flowers were destroyed and the stills were unable to continue operating, for want of flowers.
Simeon Pabucan declared in a sworn statement that, being an employee of Parlade in 1913, he knew the still in question; that he did not know why two or three days before the preliminary attachment was levied, his employer at about 9 or 10 o’clock at night ordered him to take the still in dispute to his own house and keep it there; that he did so, placing same in a chicken house, where it remained until the middle of August, 1913, when it was removed in sections by a tinsmith and other persons at Parlade’s order, only the water tank remaining.
Victor Juarez, Parlade’s laborer, testified that about the month of January or February, 1913, before the attachment, he and another laborer, Pablo Calagdag, removed said still from Parlade’s warehouse to Simeon Pabucan’s house; that the apparatus had all its accessory parts; that they deposited same in Pabucan’s chicken house; that it remained until July or August; that the tinsmith Melecio removed it at night by sections which he put in a sack so that they might not be seen; and that these facts were known to witness because he was living in Pabucan’s house.
The fact of the sale of the still by Parlade to Easton having been impugned, and that the latter purchased the still belonging to the former having been denied it behooves us to inquire into the probatory value of the deed of sale dated December 15, 1912, and to determine whether or not the alleged conveyance actually took place on the date of the said instrument.
As regards the probatory value of the document in question, article 1227 of the Civil Code prescribes:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The date of a private instrument shall be considered, with regard to third persons, only from the date on which it may have been filed or entered in a public registry, from the death of any of those who signed it, or from the date on which it may have been delivered to a public official by virtue of his office."cralaw virtua1aw library
The said instrument, drawn up on December 15, 1912, was presented only at the trial of this case on March 9, 1914, and was delivered to the court over the objection and exception of the defendant who is the third person who might be injured by its value and efficiency; and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the aforecited article of the Civil Code, even supposing that the alleged sale was genuine and valid, it cannot be considered as having been made on December 15, 1912, but on March 9, 1914, much later than the date of the attachment which was levied on October 22, 1913.
By means of the said instrument the plaintiff intended to prevent the defendant company from exercising its right in the still, a part of the property of the debtor Parlade, in order that it might collect its credit against him, a vain and useless intent, since the said instrument did not acquire any value as evidence until the lapse of four months and some days after the still had been attached, and, therefore, cannot legally affect the rights of the creditor-company, the defendant.
Therefore the sale of the still in question, the title under which the plaintiff claims to be its owner, legally exists then only from March 9, 1914, the date when instrument attesting the acquisition of the still by the plaintiff was presented at trial; and, as the record discloses no other conclusive proof that the sale actually took place on December 15, 1912, nor on any other date prior to its attachment to satisfy the defendant company’s credit, it is unquestionable that the sale of the said apparatus on the aforementioned date was simulated for the purpose of preventing its attachment and sale and of preventing the defendant company, Parlade’s creditor, from collecting its credit out of the proceeds from the sale of the said still.
Were it true that the still was sold to the plaintiff Easton on December 15, 1912, and that he was its owner from that time on, the conduct of the alleged vendor, Parlade, is inexplicable, for he kept the still in his possession until the middle of January, 1913, and, several days before the attachment was levied on his property, removed the said still and hid it in a warehouse situated behind his store where it was seen by the witnesses Venancio Cabada and Antonio Barberan who knew it, as the latter had taken part in its acquisition by Parlade and had purchased another still like the one found hidden in the said warehouse.
Furthermore, as Parlade did not believe that the still would be properly kept in the said warehouse, several days prior to the attachment of his property he ordered his employees, Victor Juarez and Pablo Calagdag, to remove it, together with all its accessory parts, to the house of Simeon Pabucan and store it in the chicken house on the premises, whence, in July or August, 1913, the tinsmith, Melecio went to remove it at night in pieces which were placed in a sack in order that they might not be seen by anyone. All these acts were performed by Parlade’s order, as was also the subsequent installation of the still on the land belonging to the house rented by Smith, Bell & Co., in Ligao, and in which Parlade was living some time in or about September of that year.
Were it true that the still in question belonged to Easton from the 15th of December, 1912, forward, Parlade would have had no need to cause it to be hidden. This was done undoubtedly for the purpose of freeing it from the attach- ment levied on his property for, had he acted in good faith, he would of course have delivered the still to its owner, and, as its vendor, he was not obliged to do more, inasmuch as after its conveyance he no longer had any right to dispose of it, but he performed or ordered done all the acts mentioned, because he was and is the true owner of the still, which he intended to protect from the action of his creditors.
The debtor Parlade alleged that it was his concubine, Gregoria, who ordered the removal of the still to Pabucan’s house and that he only learned of the occurrence afterwards. This conflicts with the testimony of his two employees who contradict him. Gregoria Sto. Domingo did not testify at the hearing of this case, and as a witness who signed the deed of sale she was aware either that the still belonged to Easton, if the said sale was true, or, if simulated, that the still could be attached by the sheriff, in which case she had the same interest in it as her companion, Parlade.
The fact that the still was never delivered to the purchaser is an additional circumstance which, in view of the evidence adduced by the defendant company, strengthens the conviction that no such sale took place and that the still continues to belong to Parlade.
For the acquisition and transmission by law of owner ship and other property rights, delivery of the things transferred is indispensable. (Art. 609, Civ. Code.)
It is a doctrine established by jurisprudence, that the delivery of a thing is a necessary and indispensable requisite in order to acquire its ownership by virtue of a contract. (Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Wilson, 8 Phil. Rep., 51; see also Manresa’s Commentaries on the Civil Code, vol. 10 p. 339.)
In the decision of the case of Kuenzle & Streiff v. Macke & Chandler (14 Phil. Rep., 610) and also in others, the following doctrine is laid down:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The ownership of personal property cannot be transferred to the prejudice of third persons except by delivery of the property itself, and a sale without such delivery gives the would-be purchaser no rights in said property except those of a creditor."cralaw virtua1aw library
In the decision of Oria v. McMicking (21 Phil. Rep., 243), it is said that the failure of the vendee to take exclusive possession of all property and the fact that the consideration of the conveyance is fictitious are some of the circumstances attending sales which have been denominated by the courts badges of fraud.
It is an undeniable fact that the stimulation of the sale of the said still was prejudicial to the defendant E. Diaz & Co., the creditor of its lawful owner Jose Parlade, inasmuch as it obstructed the proceedings brought to secure judicial compulsion and the execution of the judgment and also delayed the collection of the debt owing by Parlade.
After the still had been hidden for several months and thus saved from the attachment on the property of the debtor Parlade in February, 1913, it was installed in the house rented by Smith, Bell & Co. in the pueblo of Ligao. This fact is not proof that the plaintiff, Walter Easton, took possession and assumed control of the said still, for the evidence adduced at trial shows without a shadow of doubt that the still always continued under Parlade’s ownership in spite of its pretended sale, and the assertion made by Miss Janet Elizabeth Tangye in her deposition taken before the American consul in Paris, relative to her having delivered to Easton