BARTOLOME TABLANTE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE AQUINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This case involves a claim of intervention under title of ownership for the
recovery of possession of a lot and a warehouse erected thereon which were sold
at public auction by the sheriff of Nueva Ecija as though they were the property
of Paulino Mendiola, which, according to the plaintiff intervener, they are
not.

The facts that occurred are the following:

On May 9, 1904, the said sheriff publicly announced that on June 2 of the
same year he would sell at public auction, pursuant to a judgment rendered by
the justice of the peace of Cabanatuan against Paulino Mendiola and his
property, a lot and a warehouse situated in Sumacab of the said municipality.
The description of the property is given in the notice and corresponds with that
contained in the complaint; it is therefore regarded as correct and here
reproduced, for there is no question as to the identity of the property then
sold and now demanded (Exhibit 4). At the auction Emilio Vergara was the highest
bidder and the lot and warehouse were knocked down to him. This was on June 2,
1904, the date announced for the sale (Exhibit 6). On February 10, 1906, Emilio
Vergara sold the said lot and warehouse acquired at auction to Maria Romares
(Exhibit 5); and the latter, in turn, sold them, on December 29, 1910, to Jose
Aquino, their present possessor (Exhibit 7).

From Exhibits 1 and 2 it is seen that in 1906 the lot was still assessed as
being the property of Paulino Mendiola.

The record in this case shows the following evident facts; (1) That as far
back as 1895 the said lot was recorded in the property registry of Nueva Ecija
in the name of the spouses Marcelino Gatchalian and Ciriaca Pascual, its owners,
who, on December 18, 1894, had conferred upon Mateo del Rosario power to
administer their property and especially to sell it, and, in the exercise of
this authority, Mateo del Rosario sold the lot and warehouse in question to
Paulino Mendiola who in turn sold them to Ciriaco Bautista on August 13, 1895,
all of which sales were recorded in the said property registry. (2) That Paulino
Mendiola, notwithstanding the sale made to Ciriaco Bautista, continued in the
possession of the lot and warehouse, pursuant to a contract of lease executed
between himself and the latter. Hence, in 1904, when the judgment of the justice
of the peace of Cabanatuan was rendered against Mendiola, the said property was
attached as though it still at that time belonged to him.

However, it is not Ciriaco Bautista, the last owner recorded in the registry,
but Bartolome Tablante who now intervenes for the recovery of the said property.
The latter averred in his complaint that he purchased it from the former and”
presented as the only proof of such purchase his Exhibit B, which is a letter
addressed to him by Ciriaco Bautista, couched in the following terms:

“CONCEPCION, July 6, 1908,

“Mr. BARTOLOME TABLANTE.

“DEAR SIR: I have taken note of the contents
of your letter to Captain Bias relative to the Sumaeab warehouse. I would inform
you that this warehouse belongs exclusively to me, as you will see by the titte
deed that you already have. I have sold it to no one else but you, nor have I,
as regards this warehouse, any agent or authorized representative except Captain
Bias, whom I have entrusted to deliver the title deed to you. Paulino Mendiola
begged me to lease to him only the said warehouse, at P100 per annum; but he has
not fulfilled his promise and a long time has elapsed since he gave up the
warehouse. I hereby grant you full power to do whatever you please with the
warehouse as well as with the land on which it stands * * *

(Signed) “CIRIACO BAUTISTA.”

With this proof and the titles aforementioned presented by the plaintiff,
Exhibit A, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija rendered judgment in the
case “by sentencing Jose Aquino to deliver to the plaintiff, Bartolome Tablante,
the property in litigation and to pay to the said plaintiff the sum of P387.50
with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from this date, and to
pay the costs of this suit.”

The defendant appealed to this court and made the following assignments of
error: (1) The trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff is the owner of
the real properties in question; (2) the court erred in finding that the
defendant’s possession was held in bad faith; and (3) the court erred in holding
that the latter was liable for losses and damages and in sentencing him to the
payment of the sum aforesaid with interest at 6 per cont per annum from the date
of the sentence, and the costs.

The last two assignments of error must of course be sustained. The defendant
was a possessor in good faith. “Any person who is not aware that there is in his
title or in the manner of acquiring it any flaw invalidating the same shall be
considered a possessor in good faith.” (Civil Code, art. 433.) “Good faith is
always presumed, and any person alleging bad faith on the part of the possessor
is obliged to prove it;” (Civil Code, art. 434.) The plaintiff could not have’
averred, nor did he aver in his complaint that the defendant was a possessor in
bad faith, and if he had made such a claim he neither produced nor attempted to
produce any proof whatever of possession in bad faith on the part of the
defendant and his predecessors. Consequently, the finding of possession in bad
faith and the award of damages contained in the judgment appealed from are
entirely unfounded.

With respect to the first assignment of error, strictly speaking it also
should be sustained, inasmuch as the recovery of possession was decreed in the
judgment without having first set aside the sales consecutively made by the
sheriff to Emilio Vergara, by Vergara to Maria Romares, and by Romares to Jose
Aquino, and without any previous pronouncement, made upon petition of one of the
parties, that such sales were null and void. However, since an order to this
effect may virtually be understood to be included in the recognition of
ownership in the plaintiff, this first assignment of error will be examined only
in connection with the ground upon which it was specified by the appellant.

This ground is no other than the averment that it was not proved at the trial
that the sale, though consented to by Ciriaco Bautista in favor of Bartolome
Tablante, was at any time consummated through the tradition or delivery of the
thing sold. In fact, the ownership of things is not transferred from one person
to another by mere consent in the contract, but through the delivery of the
thing that is the subject of the contract. In the present case, it is admitted
by the appellee that there was no material delivery of the lot and warehouse by
Ciriaco Bautista to Bartolome Tablante, as up to now no. proof has been
presented of a contract of sale made between Bautista and Tablante.

Nevertheless, the law prescribes that “the placing of the titles of ownership
in the possession of the vendee or the use which he may make of his right with
the consent of the vendor shall be considered as a delivery.” (Civil Code, art.
1464.) The title deeds form the plaintiff’s Exhibit A, and the use of his right
by the purchaser who in his complaint lays claim to the lot and the warehouse,
appear to have been consented to by the vendor, by means of the aforementioned
Exhibit B. It is the same as though Ciriaco Bautista were the intervener, and if
he had been, there would have been no cause for discussion.

Therefore, after first declaring the sale made by the sheriff, together with
the subsequent ones, to be null and void, we declare Bartolome Tablante to be
the owner of the lot and warehouse described in the complaint, and the
defendant, Jose Aquino, is sentenced to restore them to the plaintiff, without
special finding as to costs of both instances, affirming the judgment appealed
from in so far as it is in agreement with this decision and reversing it in so
far as it is not.

Torres, Johnson, Carson, Moreland, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.