G.R. No. L-7047; August 21, 1958
RAYMOND TOMASSI, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FERNANDO VILLA-ABRILLE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On May 28, 1948, Fernando Villa-Abrille (defendant-appellee) purchased from the Surplus Property Commission at a public auction “All movable goods located at CMD-3 Area, Samar Naval Base, Guiuan, Samar,” as described in SPC Invoice No. 7770, which included an enumeration preceded by the phrase “consisting more or less of the following.” He immediately took possession. On October 6, 1949, Santiago Gancayco purchased from the same Commission “1-Lot of surplus property known as Lot No. 1” at Guiuan Base per SPC Invoice No. 10658. On February 2, 1950, Raymond Tomassi (plaintiff-appellant) acquired by purchase all of Gancayco’s rights to the properties in Invoice No. 10658. Tomassi filed a replevin action, claiming ownership of specific chattels enumerated in his complaint and alleging Villa-Abrille was unlawfully withholding them. Villa-Abrille defended that the sale to him covered all movable goods in the CMD-3 Area, with the enumeration being a general description only, and that the sale to Gancayco did not vest ownership of any property in that area except for construction materials previously excluded from his sale. The trial court ruled in favor of Villa-Abrille, declaring him the owner with the right to possess the articles, dismissing Tomassi’s complaint, and awarding Villa-Abrille P119,000 in damages. Tomassi appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is who between Raymond Tomassi and Fernando Villa-Abrille has a better right of ownership and possession over the disputed chattels located at CMD-3 Area, Guiuan, Samar.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing the complaint but reversed the award of damages. The Court held that SPC Invoice No. 7770, which stated it sold “All movable goods located at CMD-3 Area” with the phrase “consisting more or less of the following,” meant that all movable goods at that location were sold to Villa-Abrille. The enumeration was not exhaustive, and any variation in quantity was subject to price adjustment per the terms of the sale. Official documents from the Board of Liquidators confirmed the intention was to sell all movable goods for liquidation, subject only to specified exclusions. The sale to Gancayco (and subsequently to Tomassi) appeared to be a double sale of property already sold to Villa-Abrille. Applying Article 1473 of the old Civil Code (Article 1544 of the new), which governs double sales of personal property, ownership is transferred to the vendee who first takes possession in good faith. Since Villa-Abrille took possession in good faith immediately after his purchase in 1948, prior to the 1949 sale to Gancayco, he acquired a better right to ownership and possession than Tomassi. The award of damages was reversed for lack of satisfactory evidence, being purely speculative. Costs were imposed on the appellant.