GR L 5295; (December, 1909) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5295
KUENZLE & STREIFF, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MACKE & CHANDLER, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
December 16, 1909
FACTS:
Plaintiff Kuenzle & Streiff claimed ownership of personal property (a saloon bar, furniture, furnishings, and fixtures of the Oregon Saloon) valued at P1,000. In January 1907, defendant Sheriff Jose Desiderio levied upon this property under an execution issued on a judgment secured by defendant Macke & Chandler against Stanley & Krippendorf. The plaintiff notified the sheriff of its ownership and forbade the sale, but the sheriff proceeded, and Macke & Chandler purchased the goods, taking delivery.
Defendants alleged that the property belonged to Stanley & Krippendorf at the time of the levy and sale. They further asserted that Stanley & Krippendorf, while indebted to the plaintiff, had attempted to sell the property to the plaintiff via an unrecorded private instrument. However, the property was never delivered to the plaintiff, and Stanley & Krippendorf remained in exclusive possession and control, continuing to operate the business in their own name as they had before the supposed sale. These facts regarding the plaintiff’s alleged title and Stanley & Krippendorf’s continued possession were substantially admitted.
ISSUE:
Whether an unrecorded private instrument of sale, without actual delivery, is sufficient to transfer ownership of personal property to the prejudice of third persons.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, ruling that ownership of personal property cannot be transferred to the prejudice of third persons except by actual delivery of the property itself. A sale without delivery only vests the would-be purchaser with the rights of a creditor, not ownership.
Citing Fidelity and Deposit Company against Wilson, the Court emphasized that the bill of sale in this case, being a private document and unaccompanied by delivery, had no effect against Macke & Chandler, who dealt with the property based on its apparent possession by Stanley & Krippendorf. The Court distinguished this from a conditional sale where the vendor takes possession before third-party rights intervene, as the plaintiff in this case never took possession of the property. Therefore, Macke & Chandler, having purchased the property at a properly conducted execution sale, obtained a good title as against the plaintiff.