LAW ON SALES | ANG VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 567 SCRA 54, SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
ANG VS. COURT OF APPEALS,
567 SCRA 54, SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
“Warranty,” Explained.—A warranty is a statement or
representation made by the seller of goods, contemporaneously and as part of
the contract of sale, having reference to the character, quality or title of
the goods, and by which he promises or undertakes to insure that certain facts
are or shall be as he then represents them.
FACTS
Under a “car-swapping” scheme, respondent Bruno Soledad
(Soledad) sold his Mitsubishi GSR sedan 1982 model to petitioner Jaime Ang
(Ang) by Deed of Absolute Sale1 dated July 28, 1992. For his part, Ang conveyed
to Soledad his Mitsubishi Lancer model 1988, also by Deed of Absolute Sale2 of
even date. As Ang’s car was of a later model, Soledad paid him an additional
P55,000.00.
Ang, a buyer and seller of used vehicles, later offered the
Mitsubishi GSR for sale through Far Eastern Motors, a second-hand auto display
center. The vehicle was eventually sold to a certain Paul Bugash (Bugash) for
P225,000.00, by Deed of Absolute Sale3 dated August 14, 1992. Before the deed
could be registered in Bugash’s name, however, the vehicle was seized by virtue
of a writ of replevin on account of the alleged failure of Ronaldo Panes, the
owner of the vehicle prior to Soledad, to pay the mortgage debt5 constituted
thereon. To secure the release of the vehicle, Ang paid BA Finance the amount
of P62,038.476 on March 23, 1993. Soledad refused to reimburse the said amount,
despite repeated demands.
For the sake of justice and equity, and in consonance with
the salutary principle of non-enrichment at another’s expense, the RTC declared
that defendant should reimburse plaintiff the P62,038.47.
The appellate court went on to hold that Soledad “has
nothing to do with the transaction anymore; his obligation ended when he
delivered the subject vehicle to the respondent upon the perfection of the
contract of sale.” And it reiterated its ruling that the action, being one
arising from breach of warranty, had prescribed, it having been filed beyond
the 6-month prescriptive period.
ISSUE
Whether Ang invokes breach of warranty against eviction.
RULING
No.
Here, the Court held that in declaring that he owned and
had clean title to the vehicle at the time the Deed of Absolute Sale was
forged, Soledad gave an implied warranty of title. In pledging that he “will
defend the same from all claims or any claim whatsoever [and] will save the
vendee from any suit by the government of the Republic of the Philippines,”
Soledad gave a warranty against eviction. Given Ang’s business of buying and
selling used vehicles, he could not have merely relied on Soledad’s affirmation
that the car was free from liens and encumbrances. He was expected to have
thoroughly verified the car’s registration and related documents. Since what
Soledad, as seller, gave was an implied warranty, the prescriptive period to
file a breach thereof is six months after the delivery of the vehicle,
following Art. 1571. But even if the date of filing of the action is reckoned
from the date petitioner instituted his first complaint for damages on November
9, 1993, and not on July 15, 1996 when he filed the complaint subject of the
present petition, the action just the same had prescribed, it having been filed
16 months after July 28, 1992, the date of delivery of the vehicle.
