GR 47981; (July, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47981 , July 24, 1989
JUAN V. SABINOSA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BIENVENIDO F. BUNYI, and MARIANITO P. BAUTISTA, respondents.
FACTS
Marianito P. Bautista borrowed P33,000.00 from Bienvenido F. Bunyi to pay for the shipment, customs duties, and taxes for two payloaders from Japan. To secure the loan, Bautista executed a chattel mortgage over the payloaders in favor of Bunyi on June 20, 1972. The agreement stipulated that upon release from customs, the payloaders would be delivered to Bunyi for safekeeping. Bautista defaulted on the loan and failed to deliver the equipment. Consequently, Bunyi filed a replevin action against Bautista and a “John Doe.” The payloaders were seized from a customs bonded warehouse operated by Rafael M. Sumadchat.
Petitioner Juan V. Sabinosa appeared as the “John Doe,” claiming ownership of the payloaders based on an affidavit from Bautista. Bautista later retracted this affidavit, reaffirming his ownership and the mortgage to Bunyi. The trial court found that Sabinosa had, prior to the lawsuit, executed a deed of absolute sale over the payloaders in favor of Sumadchat. Despite this sale, Sabinosa participated in the case claiming to be the “actual and real owner-consignee,” while Sumadchat never intervened or filed any claim.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision declaring respondent Bunyi entitled to possession of the payloaders and ordering Bautista to pay the loan, despite Sabinosa’s claim of ownership.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centered on the preponderance of evidence and Sabinosa’s lack of legal standing. The trial court correctly determined that Bautista was the owner of the payloaders based on evidence of his acquisition and receipt of the units. The contract between Bautista and Bunyi, though an unrecorded chattel mortgage without delivery (thus not a pledge), was a valid innominate contract analogous to a chattel mortgage, entitling Bunyi to possession upon Bautista’s default.
Sabinosa’s claim was fatally inconsistent. He asserted ownership in his answer but had previously sold the payloaders to Sumadchat, claiming he was merely acting under a vendor’s warranty. This vacillation undermined his credibility. The Court found that Sabinosa, having divested himself of ownership via the sale to Sumadchat, had no legal personality to contest Bunyi’s right to the chattels. Any right to challenge the mortgage would belong to the vendee, Sumadchat, who never asserted any claim. The unnatural detachment of Sumadchat from the proceedings suggested the sale was a device to place the assets beyond Bunyi’s reach. Therefore, the findings of fact by the lower courts, which found Bunyi’s and Bautista’s evidence more credible, were binding.