G.R. NO. 172446 - ALEXANDER “ALEX” MACASAET, VS. R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION.

Ruling

Accordingly, R. Transport delivered to Macasaet two (2) passenger buses. Despite repeated demands, however, Macasaet failed to pay the stipulated purchase price. This prompted R. Transport to file a complaint seeking the issuance of a writ of replevin, praying for judgment declaring R. Transport as the lawful owner and possessor of the passenger buses and ordering Macasaet to remit the amount of P660,000.00 representing the income generated by the two buses from 16 October 1995 to 2 January 1996. [6] Prior to the execution of the contract, Special Trip Contract was entered into by the parties on 8 October 1995. [7] This contract stipulated that R. Transport would lease the four buses subject of the deed of sale to Macasaet for the sum of P10,000.00 a day per bus or a total of P280,000.00 for the duration of one week, from 15-22 October 1995. [8] Respondents finance officer testified that the purpose of the contract was to support the delivery of the first two buses pending formal execution of the deed of sale. [9] On 8 January 1996, on R. Transports motion, the trial court issued a writ of seizure [10] ordering the sheriff to take possession of the two buses in NMTC subject to R. Transports filing of a bond in the amount of P12,000,000.00. The sheriff recovered the two buses and delivered them to R. Transport on 16 January 1996. [11] For his defense, petitioner alleged that he had paid respondent the full consideration of P12,000,000.00 and had agreed to assume the mortgage obligation in favor of Phil. Hino Sales Corporation. He claimed ownership over the four passenger buses, including the two buses already delivered to him. He further contended that he had already remitted P120,000.00 to respondent as partial payment of the mortgage obligation. Petitioner admitted that he had been earning at least P7,000.00 per day on each of the buses. [12] For his counterclaim, he prayed for the return of the bus units seized and the immediate delivery of the other two units, as well as for payment of damages. [13] In its Decision [14] dated 15 February 2001, the RTC upheld the right of respondent to possess the two buses but dismissed its claim for recovery of unpaid rentals for the use of the two buses. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the defendant and against plaintiff, dismissing the Complaint as regards the claim for recovery of the unpaid rentals of the two (2) passenger buses which were used by the defendant from October 16, 1995 until January 16, 1996 for lack of evidence. SO ORDERED.