G.R. No. 1433 : January 14, 1904
CO-BOO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LIM-TIAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Co-Boo filed an action for recovery of personal property (furniture and store fixtures valued at 676 pesos) against defendant Lim-Tian. Co-Boo claimed ownership through a gift from his father, Co-Kay, who originally owned the furniture. Co-Boo alleged that in 1899, before returning to China, Co-Kay leased both a storehouse and the furniture to Lim-Tian for a monthly rent of 75 pesos, as evidenced by a document dated October 1, 1899. Co-Boo testified that all parties were present when the document was prepared and signed for them by one Si-Tiang, and that Lim-Tian had been paying the monthly rent.

Lim-Tian defended his possession by claiming he purchased the furniture from his former partner, Co-Tio, in February 1901, as shown in their partnership books. He also presented receipts for rent signed by Co-Boo which only acknowledged payment for the store, not the furniture, and an industrial license transferred from Co-Tio to him.

The trial court ruled in favor of Co-Boo, ordering the recovery of the property. Lim-Tian appealed, challenging the sufficiency of Co-Boo’s evidence, particularly the validity of the lease document which he did not personally sign.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presented by plaintiff Co-Boo is sufficient to prove his ownership of the furniture and his right to recover it from defendant Lim-Tian.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the lease document dated October 1, 1899, was valid and binding on Lim-Tian. The fact that Lim-Tian did not personally sign it was immaterial because the evidence showed he was present when it was executed and signed on his behalf by Si-Tiang at his direction, and he subsequently accepted its terms by paying rent and occupying the premises. Under the law, a party may be bound by a contract if he authorizes another to sign for him or if he accepts delivery and performs under it.

The Court found the plaintiff’s direct and corroborated testimony regarding the ownership and lease of the furniture to be credible and sufficient. In contrast, the defendant’s evidencepartnership books, receipts, and an industrial licensewas deemed insufficient to overcome the plaintiff’s clear evidence of ownership and merely indicated an attempt to wrongfully appropriate the property. The presumptions raised by the defendant (e.g., that possession indicates ownership) are only disputable and yield to positive evidence.

The trial court’s findings of fact were not plainly against the weight of evidence. Therefore, the judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.