Scribd
Upload
110 views2 pages

Rivera V Ong

This case involves a dispute over items purchased at a yard sale. Marciano Rivera purchased items but did not take them home, leaving them at the yard. A month later, Ong Che purchased items at the same yard sale, including some of the items Rivera had purchased, and took them home. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ong Che, finding that as the purchaser who took possession of the items, he had better title than Rivera who did not take possession after purchasing.

Uploaded by

Clarence Protacio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
110 views2 pages

Rivera V Ong

This case involves a dispute over items purchased at a yard sale. Marciano Rivera purchased items but did not take them home, leaving them at the yard. A month later, Ong Che purchased items at the same yard sale, including some of the items Rivera had purchased, and took them home. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ong Che, finding that as the purchaser who took possession of the items, he had better title than Rivera who did not take possession after purchasing.

Uploaded by

Clarence Protacio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

RIVERA v ONG

G.R. No. 11176 | December 21, 1917


Street, J. | Protacio – Group 3

Plaintiff-Appellant: Marciano Rivera


Defendant-Appellee: Ong Che

SUMMARY
Rivera buys from a yard sale but doesn’t take it home with him. Ong then buys the same things,
but this time takes it home. There was obviously a double sale. Supreme Court sides with Ong
since he was a buyer in good faith.

FACTS (super short case)


- The house of Lichauco had a yard sale for certain old machinery and boilers
o Deposited and exposed for sale in a yard at Tanday, Manila
- Plaintiff Marciano Rivera allegedly purchased some of the old material for the price of
P5.50, receiving a receipt from Cresanto Lichauco showing the purchase
o The things bought were: two complete steam-boilers with chimneys, 1 steam
motor, 1 pair of twin rice hullers complete, and a feeding pump for boilers
- Rivera did not take possession of the property when he bought it so it remained in the
same place
- A month after, Ong Che bought a lot of iron, machinery, and junk for the sum of P1,100.
o He took immediate possession of the things he bought
- When Marciano Rivera went to take possession of what he bought, he found that many
of the accessory and auxiliary parts of the boilers, motor, and rice mill were wanting
o It was held by defendant, Ong Che, and claimed by him as the owner
- Marciano instituted this present action to recover the articles in question
- CFI Manila rendered judgment in favor of defendant, hence this case.

ISSUE
W/N Marciano Rivera is the owner of the articles that were subsequently bought by Ong Che. –
NO

RATIO
- Defendant was a purchaser in good faith, and he acquired possession by virtue of his
purchase
- Ong Che has better title than the first purchase, who has never had possession at all
- Conflict in testimony as to who the original owner is (not important)
o Crisanto Lichauco, who sold to Rivera, was not a member of the house of
Lichauco
o Crisanto testified that the property he sold was property of Galo Lichauco, one of
the members of the establishment
o But the Court doubts the correctness of this statement because evidence by
defendant tends to how that things acquitted by him were bought from Faustino
Lichauco
- Nonetheless, even if the property did belong to Galo Lichauco, the house of Lichauco
still had authority to sell it
o Where two different agents of the same owner negotiated sales to two different
purchasers, the second purchaser having acquired possession first must be
declared the true owner
o It was merely a mistake of selling something that had already been sold
- It was also incumbent upon plaintiff to prove title in himself, against the defendant, by a
preponderance of evidence
o He can’t just recover merely on the weakness of defendant’s title
o Rivera failed to prove title in himself
- Defendant had, in his favor, the fact that he was a purchaser in good faith and had
acquired lawful possession
- There is a presumption arising from such possession that he was the owner.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy