100%(9)9 out of 9 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 66 - 68 out of 123 pages.
Third, and on the real issue, on whether Edca had been unlawfully deprived of the books, Edca argued that the impostor acquired no title to the books
LAW ON PROPERTY NOTES BASED ON PARAS BOOK AND ATTY. FRANCIS AMPIL’S LECTURE Page 67 of 123 BY: MA. ANGELA LEONOR C. AGUINALDO ATENEO LAW 2D 2010 because of the lack of funds in the check issued and want of consideration. This is without merit. Nonpayment of purchase price only gives rise to the right to demand payment or rescission of the contract. Actual delivery was made to the impostor and thus, ownership was acquired by him. Non-payment was a matter privy to him and Edca and doesn't involve Santos who later acquired the books. 126 LEDESMA V. CA 213 SCRA 195 FACTS: Two motor vehicles—Honda Gemini and Holden Premiere Model—were purchased from Citiwide Motors by a person who identified himself as Jojo Consunji. He bought the vehicles purportedly for his father. Upon delivery to him of the vehicles, he paid a manager’s check drawn against PCIB. The check though was dishonored by the bank on the ground that the check’s value has been materially altered. This was reported to the police authorities and it was found out that the person misrepresenting himself was actually Suarez who had a long line of criminal cases against him for his modus operandi. The Holden car was recovered after being abandoned somewhere in Quezon City. The Honda on the other hand, was discovered to be sold to Ledesma. Ledesma averred he purchased the vehicle in good faith from one Neyra, as evidenced by his certificate of registration. Citiwide Motors was able to recover. HELD: There was a perfected unconditional contract of sale between Citiwide Motors and Suarez. The subsequent dishonor of the check merely amounted to failure of consideration which doesn't render a contract of sale void, but merely allows the prejudiced party to sue for specific performance or rescission of the sale. This being the case, Citiwide motors wasn't unlawfully deprived of the property. It is thus not entitled to the return of the vehicle from Ledesma who bought the property in good faith and for consideration. 127 CHUA KAI V. KAPUNAN 104 PHIL 110 FACTS: Soto purchased from Youngstown Hardware 700 galvanized iron sheets and round iron bars. He issued as payment a check drawn against Security Bank. Soto then sold the sheets, some of them to Chua Hai. Meanwhile, the check issued for payment was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. This prompted the hardware store to file a case of estafa against Soto and prayed for the return of the sheets. This was opposed by Chua on the part of the sheets he purchased. Notwithstanding this opposition, the court ordered for its return. HELD: To deprive Chua, who was in good faith, of the possession of the sheets, may it be temporarily or permanently, is in violation of the rule laid down in Article 559. Possession of chattels in good faith is equivalent to title, until ordered by the proper court to restore the thing to the owner who was illegally derpived thereof. Until such decree is issued, the possessor as