G.R. No. L-8941




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-8941 March 23, 1916 GUILLERMO VELOSO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORENZO BECERRA and DIONISIO JAKOSALEM, sheriff of the Province of Cebu, defendants-appellants. Felix Sevilla Macam for appellants. Isidro Vamenta for appellee. JOHNSON, J.: This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu on the 4th of January. 1911. Its purpose was to recover the possession of three vacas together with damages for the illegal detention of the same. The defendants interposed a general and special denial. After hearing the evidence, the Honorable Adolph Wislizenus, judge, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession of the three vacas and rendered a decision on the 18th of March, 1913, ordering the returned of the said vaca to the plaintiff, with costs against the defendant, Lorenzo Becerra. From that judgment the defendants appealed and the cause was submitted to this court for decision on the 8th of February, 1916. The theory of the plaintiff is that he purchased the oldest vaca from his brother, Maximino Veloso, in 1906, and that the other vaca in question are the product of that one. He presented no documentary proof whatever of his ownership of the vacas in question. Act No. 1147 was adopted nearly two years prior to the alleged purchase of the vacas in question by the plaintiff. Section 22 of said Act provides that: No transfer of large cattle shall be valid unless registered and a certificate of transfer secured as herein provided. The registration and certification are required in accordance with sections 13 and 14 of said Act. In view, therefore, of the provisions of said section 22, the alleged sale of the vaca in question by Maximino Veloso, in 1906, to the plaintiff was invalid and the alleged transfer, therefore, conveyed no title to the purchaser. The plaintiff is attempting to recover the vacas in question, upon the theory that he is the owner. By virtue of the provisions of section 22, he is not the owner and cannot, therefore, recover the same in the present case. (Ramos vs. Hijos de I. de la Rama, 15 Phil. Rep., 554; Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Alegre and Marcos, 28 Phil. Rep., 548.) For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the judgment of the lower court must be reversed, and without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered. Torres and Araullo, JJ., concur. Trent, J., reserves his vote. Separate Opinions MORELAND, J., concurring: I concur in the reversal of the judgment. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation