Aznar V Yapdiangco Case Study

965 Words4 Pages
registration, the principal, who is the true owner of the motor vehicle, is precluded from denying the agent’s authority to sell. The true owner who did not take back the actual possession of the motor vehicle is, by his conduct, precluded from denying the authority to sell.[ NCC, Article 1505.] 3. Distinction between Voluntary Delivery and Involuntary Delivery of the Motor Vehicle to the Seller A distinction between voluntary delivery and involuntary delivery of the motor vehicle is essential to further clarify the context of unlawful deprivation in this thesis. The case of Aznar v. Yapdiangco[ G.R. No. L-18536, March 31, 1965] elucidates a case wherein the delivery of the movable property is involuntary, and is therefore considered as stolen or lost, whereas the case of Dizon v. Suntay[ G.R. No. L-30817, September 29, 1972] elucidates voluntary delivery of the movable vehicle, and is therefore considered as the unlawful deprivation being referred to in the proposal. In the case of Aznar, the seller and the buyer reached an agreement where payment will be delivered once the registration of the subject motor vehicle have been processed. When the motor vehicle registration was made, the buyer was obligated to give payment to the seller upon his delivery of the motor vehicle in the place agreed upon. The seller was, however, fooled in…show more content…
Jimenez, G.R. no. 13514-R, February 22, 1957.] This means that if the true and registered owner of a motor vehicle entrusts or allows another individual to possess the motor vehicle and its certificate of registration and official receipt, he is in effect giving such individual an opportunity to transfer the registration of the motor vehicle in his name and thereafter to sell the motor vehicle to a third person acting as a buyer in good faith and for

    More about Aznar V Yapdiangco Case Study

      Open Document