Yu vs. HonradoFacts:Sub|ectof thecasesthepossessonofabout forty-two metrc tons of scrap engnebocks (vaued at more than forty thousandpesos), part of a stock whch Marceo SteeCorporaton sod to an aeged swnder and whchscrap ron was aegedy purchased n good fathby the Yu spouses from the swnder but retrevedfrom the purchasers by Marceo Stee Corporatonby means of a search warrant.Marceo sod to Refuerzo who pad through abouncng check.Refuerzo sodto Soedad|unk shop who padnGF (nnocent purchaser) but tems were sezed bypoce because court |udge (Honrado) decared tto have been embezzed and returned to MarceoStee Corp. The sca ed a case of Estafa aganst Refuerzoet.a. The case temporary archved the case. Butresouton has to be rendered as to the conctngcamsof theSoedad- YuspousesandMarceoStee Corporaton wth respect to the scrapengne bocks.The Yu spouses bought the scrap engine blocks ingood faithfor44,000fromtheallegedswindlerwithout any notice that the same were obtainedunder false pretenses or by means of a bouncingcheck. ThepurchasebytheYuspousesof thescrap engine blocks from Refuerzo, doingbusiness under the tradename C. C. arriedCorporation, was co!ered by a sales in!oice andseemed to ha!e been made in the ordinarycourse of businessHeld: Marceo Stee Corporaton contends that trecovered the scrap engne bocks by means of avadwarrant. TheYuspousescounter that thesearchwarrant wasvodbecausetwasssuedwthout probabe cause on the bass of Nuestro'shearsay testmony.The court hed that the search warrant wasawfuy ssued. Respondent |udge comped wththerequrements. But fromthefact that thesearchwarrant was vadyssued, t does notfoowthatMarceoStee Corporatonsenttedto retan the same. There s as yet no decree ofresttutonnthecrmna caseenttngMarceoStee Corporaton to recover the scrap ron fromthe thrd person who bought t n good fath andfor vaue. Hence, n the absence of anyad|udcatonastothecv abty, theresnoega bass for aowng Marceo Stee Corporatonto recover possesson of the scrap engne bocks."ince #arcelo "teel Corporation and the Yuspouses acted in good faith, the $uestion is whichof them should su%er the loss occasioned by theacts of the alleged swindler&Theanswerisfoundintherule, enunciatedby'ustice(olmesin)liason!s. *ilborn, +,-..".4/0 1applied here by analogy2, that, 3as betweentwo innocent persons, one of whom must su%ertheconse$uenceof abreachof trust, theonewhomadeit possiblebyhisact of con4dencemust bear the loss3Cordero vs. CabralFacts:Gregoro Z. Ocampoded andeftwdowFepa Cordero and her chdren a surnamedOcampo wth a parce of and whch s a rceand-the southern porton of whch s occuped bydefendant Vctora Cabra who refused tosurrender and vacate sad porton of andsdespte demands of Cordero.Cabra camsthatsheandherpredecessorsnnterest havebeennactua, adverse, peacefuand contnuous possesson of ths porton of andfor a perod of more than 50 years. Panthsaeged that defendants predecessors n nterestnever reay acqured owner of sad and from thedeceased Ocampo through a vad sae but onyas "prospectve owner" because the sae dd notmateraze. So Cabras possesson cant beadverse nor contnuous. Nether dd she acquresad and by prescrpton because the and stted and regstered to Ocampo therefore,'mprescrptbe'.Held:Thedefendants, bytheirownadmission,are in possession of the disputed land. There isnoe!idencethat theywerepossessorsinbadfaith. (owe!er, their good faith ceased when theywere ser!ed with summons to answer thecomplaint. 15rt. /+,, Ci!il Code6 Tacas !s. Tobon,/78hil. 7/9 :-;+;