Rubiso v. Rivera
Rubiso v. Rivera
Rubiso v. Rivera
Facts:
- Plaintiffs were the owners of the pilot boat named Valentina, which had been in bad condition since the year 1914 and,
on the date of the complaint, was stranded in the place called Tingloy, of the municipality of Bauan, Batangas
- Defendant Florentino E. Rivera took charge or possession of said vessel without the knowledge or consent of the
plaintiff and refused to deliver it to them, under claim that he was the owner thereof
o This caused the plaintiffs to suffer damages, because they could not proceed to repair the vessel, and also
because they were unable to derive profit from the voyages for which said pilot boat was customarily used
o The net amount of such uncollected profit was P1,750
- Plaintiffs then prayed that judgment be rendered by ordering the defendant to deliver said pilot boat to the plaintiffs and
indemnify them
- Defendants answer:
o Said that pilot boat belonged to a businessnamed "Gelito and Co.," and that Bonifacio Gelito being a copartner
thereof to the extent of two-thirds, and the Chinaman Sy Qui, to that of the one-third, of the value of said
vessel;
o Subsequently Bonifacio Gelito sold his share to his copartner Sy Qui, as attested by the instrument Exhibit
A, registered in the office of the Collector of Customs
o Chinaman, the absolute owner of the vessel, sold it in turn to the defendant Rivera, according to the public
instrument, also attached to his answer as Exhibit B
o Because of this, Rivera took possession of said pilot boat Valentina, as its sole owner
- CFI: defendant and appellant was ordered to place at the disposal of the plaintiff Fausto Rubiso the pilot boat in
litigation
- Defendant filed motion for new trial but it was denied.
- Hence this appeal by bill of exceptions.
Held:
- Ships or vessels, whether moved by steam or by sail, partake, to a certain extent, of the nature and conditions of real
property, on account of their value and importance in the world commerce; and for this reason the provisions of article
573 of the Code of Commerce are nearly identical with those of article 1473 of the Civil Code.
- RE damages: No evidence of actual damages, nor was there any evidence of bad faith on the part of Rivera.
For the foregoing considerations, whereby the errors assigned to the judgment appealed from are deemed to have been refuted,
it is our opinion that said judgment should be, as it is hereby, affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.