G.R. No. 1454 : August 17, 1905

FACTS:
The defendant, Eugenio Ocampo, was the owner of twenty-seven carabaos. In 1897, he was taken to Manila as a political prisoner. Upon his return to Nueva Caceres, he found the carabaos in the possession of officers of the revolutionary government, who subsequently delivered them to him. The carabaos later all died while in Ocampo’s possession.

The plaintiff, Reymundo Eced, claimed that while Ocampo was in Manila, his general agent in Nueva Caceres sold the carabaos to Eced. These carabaos were later seized by revolutionary authorities on the grounds that Eced was a Spaniard. Eced filed an action to recover the value of the carabaos from Ocampo.

The trial court did not make a finding on whether the alleged sale occurred. Instead, it ruled in favor of Ocampo based on the following: (1) the carabaos died without Ocampo’s fault; (2) Ocampo took possession of them in good faith, believing them to be his property and without knowledge of the alleged sale; and (3) under these circumstances, Article 457 of the Civil Code relieved Ocampo of liability for their loss.

Eced appealed, contesting the finding of good faith. He argued that Ocampo was informed of and approved the sale via a letter to his agent. The trial judge found as a fact that this letter did not refer to the carabaos in question.

ISSUE:
Did the defendant, Eugenio Ocampo, take possession of the carabaos in bad faith, thereby making him liable to the plaintiff, Reymundo Eced, for their value?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Ocampo.

The Court held that the evidence did not support a finding of bad faith on Ocampo’s part. The trial judge’s factual findingthat the letter presented by Eced did not refer to the carabaos in disputecould not be reviewed on appeal because there was no motion for a new trial, and thus the evidence was not part of the bill of exceptions.

The Court noted that the only written evidence of the alleged sale was a private memorandum in Eced’s possession in Manila, of which Ocampo had no knowledge. Furthermore, the fact that the carabaos were seized as Eced’s property and that twenty bore Eced’s marks was insufficient to prove fraud, as no public record of the sale existed. Under these circumstances, Ocampo was deemed to have taken possession in good faith.

Consequently, applying Article 457 of the Civil Code, Ocampo was not liable for the loss of the carabaos that died without his fault while in his possession in good faith. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

DOCTRINE:
A possessor in good faith is not liable for the loss or deterioration of the thing possessed if such loss occurs without his fault, pursuant to Article 457 of the Civil Code. Good faith in possession is presumed, and the burden of proving bad faith lies with the party alleging it.