G.R. No. L-172; April 25, 1946
Pedro Enriquez y Marcosa Borja, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Josefa Manuel de Merle y de Merle y Merle (spouse), defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, claiming to be the owners of motor jitney No. P6-270834, filed a complaint seeking an order for the defendants to deliver the vehicle to them in good condition or pay its market value of P2,000. The defendants, as a defense, alleged that they received the jitney as payment for the rentals of their house on Santol Street, Manila, which was occupied by a Japanese army garrison; that upon the entry of American forces into Manila, Commander Ronquillo of a guerrilla unit took possession of the vehicle for his use and returned it at the end of March, making them pay P750 for the cost of spare parts used to make it serviceable. In a counterclaim, they sought payment of P430 spent to put the car in good condition, in case the court ordered its restitution to the plaintiffs. The truck was purchased by the plaintiffs on November 4, 1941. In the latter months of 1944, it was confiscated by the Japanese army without payment. The garrison that seized the truck occupied the defendants’ house, and before the American forces took the city, the demoralized Japanese fled, leaving the vehicle on the lot. Commander Ronquillo took the car for his use and returned it to the defendants at the end of March 1945. The trial court ordered the defendants to deliver the truck in good condition to the plaintiffs or pay P2,000 and costs.

ISSUE

1. Whether the plaintiffs lost ownership of the truck due to its confiscation by Japanese forces and later by a guerrilla unit, and thus have the right to recover it.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not awarding the defendants the amount of P950 allegedly paid to Commander Ronquillo.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not crediting the defendants the amount of P430 claimed for repairs in their counterclaim.
4. What is the reasonable value of the truck for purposes of alternative payment.

RULING

1. On Ownership and Right to Recovery: The confiscation of the vehicle by the enemy hordes and subsequently by a Filipino guerrilla unit are not acts that transfer ownership; therefore, the plaintiffs did not lose their dominion and have the right to recover it from any person in possession. The trial court did not err in ordering its delivery to the plaintiffs or payment of its reasonable value.
2. On the Claim for P950: The defendants alleged they paid Commander Ronquillo P950 when the jitney (minus the battery) was returned. Commander Ronquillo, testifying, only identified Exhibit 2 and acknowledged Exhibit 3 as his handwriting. Exhibit 2 proves the jitney left by the Japanese was confiscated by his guerrilla unit. Exhibit 3 proves the spare parts listed were received by the defendant with a promise to pay P950 on March 24, 1945. The defendants did not question the witness about the payment. The omission of a party to ask its own witness about an essential fact in controversy suggests a presumption that the answer would have been unfavorable. The amount of P950 was neither claimed in the answer’s prayer nor proven to have been paid. The trial court did not err in not ruling in favor of the defendants for P950.
3. On the Counterclaim for P430: No evidence was presented regarding certain repair expenses totaling P430 claimed in the counterclaim, except for Exhibit 4, whose authenticity and presentation were not challenged. The trial court erred in not crediting the amount of P180, proven by said Exhibit 4, in favor of the defendants. If the plaintiffs are to pay the P180 spent by the defendants to make the truck usable, it is simply just and equitable that the vehicle be delivered in that condition.
4. On the Vehicle’s Value: The plaintiffs claim P2,000 as the market value. A plaintiff testifying stated the truck was worth five to six thousand pesos at the time of trial, which the court found exaggerated. Exhibit B shows the plaintiffs bought it for only P1,650 on March 4, 1943. The defendants offered P1,500 for this car when it was found on Bamban Street. Considering the allegations and declarations, the court found the midpoint between P2,000 and P1,500, or P1,750, to be the reasonable value. Deducting the P180 paid by the defendants for repairs (per Exhibit A), leaves P1,570. This is the amount the defendants must pay the plaintiffs if they cannot deliver the car. Regarding the P950 Commander Ronquillo spent for repairs, the court believed this expense was compensated by his use of the vehicle; it was noted the car bore its 1941 plate No. 1-7904, indicating it was not brought by enemy forces.
DISPOSITIVE:
Judgment is rendered reducing to P1,570 the amount the defendants must pay the plaintiffs or, alternatively, to deliver the car to them in running condition. No pronouncement as to costs.