VICTORIA R. VALLARTA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE HONORABLE JUDGE FRANCISCO LLAMAS, Pasay City Court, Respondents.

G.R. No. L-40195 May 29, 1987

FACTS:

Cruz entrusted Petitioner 7 pieces of jewelry, where the latter issued a post dated check for the items, however, the check was dishonored by the bank. Vallarta promised Cruz that she would issue another check but failed to do so.

Petitioner’s allegation was that what transpired between her and Cruz was a “Sale or Return” to which the check was payment for a pre-existing obligation. Thus she can only be civilly liable.

RTC and CA found Vallarta guilty of estafa.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the transaction was a “Sale or Return”

HELD:

NO.

Properly, then, the transaction entered into by Cruz and Vallarta was not a "sale or return." Rather, it was a "sale on approval " (also called " sale on acceptance, " "sale on trial." or "sale on satisfaction" [CIVIL CODE, art. 1502]). In a "sale or return," the ownership passes to the buyer on delivery (CIVIL CODE, art. 1502). (The subsequent return of the goods reverts ownership in the seller [CIVIL CODE, art. 1502]). Delivery, or tradition. as a mode of acquiring ownership must be in consequence of a contract (CIVIL CODE, art. 712), e.g. sale.chanr

If there was no meeting of the minds on November 20, 1968, then, as of that date, there was yet no contract of sale which could be the basis of delivery or tradition. Thus, the delivery made on November 20, 1968 was not a delivery for purposes of transferring ownership - the prestation incumbent on the vendor. If ownership over the jewelry was not transmitted on that date, then it could have been transmitted only in December 1968, the date when the check was issued. In which case, it was a "sale on approval" since ownership passed to the buyer. Vallarta, only when she signified her approval or acceptance to the seller, Cruz, and the price was agreed upon.