G.R. No. L-24490 May 29, 1968
CIRIACO LANDA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO TOBIAS, Municipal Mayor; EMILIANO DEL CAMPO, Municipal Treasurer; REGIO B. SUBONG, Chief of Police; JUANITO PECATE and JUANITO ALFARO, Municipal Policemen, Cabatuan, Iloilo, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On June 23, 1962, defendants Juanito Pecate and Juanito Alfaro, members of the police force of Cabatuan, Iloilo, acting under Section 538 of the Revised Administrative Code, seized a carabao from plaintiff Ciriaco Landa. Landa produced a certificate of ownership for the carabao in the name of Pantaleon Elvas. The peace officers delivered the carabao to municipal treasurer Emiliano del Campo. On July 25, 1962, under the authority of Section 540 of the Revised Administrative Code, the municipal treasurer sold the carabao at public auction, which sale was duly approved by the Provincial Board on July 26, 1963. In an affidavit dated June 25, 1962, Landa claimed he acquired the carabao by barter from Marcelino Mayormente. Mayormente was later charged with swindling in the Justice of the Peace Court of Cabatuan on August 1, 1962, but was not apprehended. Landa filed an action for damages against the municipal officials, alleging wrongful deprivation of the carabao. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo dismissed the complaint after the presentation of plaintiff’s evidence. Landa appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint, specifically in holding that Landa had no title to the carabao and that the seizure and sale were lawful.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court held that Landa failed to establish title to the carabao. The Revised Administrative Code requires registration of transfer and issuance of a certificate of transfer for the validity of a transfer of cattle, which Landa did not prove. The certificate of ownership he produced was in the name of Pantaleon Elvas, not Landa or Mayormente, and bore signs of tampering. Furthermore, since Mayormente had no proven title, no title could pass to Landa. The policemen had reasonable grounds to suspect unlawful possession, justifying the seizure under Section 538. The subsequent sale by the municipal treasurer under Section 540 was proper, as Landa failed to present himself and prove title within the statutory period. Even assuming Landa were the owner, his remedy was to claim the carabao before the municipal treasurer prior to or at the auction, not a judicial action for damages against the public officers who performed their official duties. The sale was conducted as a sale of an “unclaimed animal” under Section 540, not an “astray,” which was applicable as the animal was taken from a person suspected of unlawful possession. The defendants were not liable.