EASTON vs. E. DIAZ & COMPANY - G.R. No. 10012

WALTER EASTON vs. E. DIAZ & COMPANY

and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ALBAY

G.R. No. 10012                        November 9, 1915

The counsel for Walter Easton filed a written complaint in the CFI alleging that he was the sole and exclusive owner of a still bearing the trade-mark "Ecrot" installed on a piece of land occupied by Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd., and in charge of Jose Parlade. As a result of the civil case of said court brought by E. Diaz and company against Jose Parlade, in spite of defendant knowing that this still did not belong to Parlade, sought in bad faith to have it attached. The plaintiff presented to the sheriff a third party claim of ownership, setting forth therein that damages to the extent of not less that P100 a day were being caused the claimant for each day the sheriff retained the still in his possession because this was the season for the distillation of ilang-ilang. But the defendant company gave bond to secure the sheriff in order that he might proceed to sell the still at public auction. The latter's counsel, therefore, prayed the court that a preliminary injunction issue against the defendant company, its attorneys, agents and employees, and the provincial sheriff, restraining them from performing any act whatever which might prevent the plaintiff from using the said distilling apparatus, to order the sheriff to make immediate return of the still to the place where it had been installed, upon the furnishing of such bond as the court might consider sufficient, to declare that the said still is the exclusive property of the plaintiff, and to sentence the defendant company to pay to the plaintiff the sum of at least P100 for each day that has elapsed or may elapse from the date of the attachment of the still to that of its return, with the costs against the defendant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the alleged conveyance of the still by Parlade to Easton actually took place.

HELD:

No. The fact that the still was never delivered to the purchaser is a 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 legal acquisition and transfer of ownership and other property rights, the thing transferred must be delivered, inasmuch as, according to settled jurisprudence the tradition of the thing is a necessary and indispensable requisite in the acquisition of said ownership by virtue of a contract.

For the acquisition and transmission by law of ownership 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.