Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Masiclat v. Centeno

    Transféré par

    Maria Analyn
    284 vues1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The Court of Appeals had awarded a disputed rice shipment to defendant Centeno rather than plaintiffs Masiclat, et al. The Supreme Court agreed that ownership of the rice was not transmitted to Masiclat, et al. because the evidence did not clearly show that Centeno was the person who sold the rice or that Masiclat, et al. had paid for and taken possession of the rice.

    Description originale:

    Sale in merchant's store, market, or fair

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The Court of Appeals had awarded a disputed rice shipment to defendant Centeno rather than plaintiffs Masiclat, et al. The Supreme Court agreed that ownership of the rice was not transmitted to Masiclat, et al. because the evidence did not clearly show that Centeno was the person who sold the rice or that Masiclat, et al. had paid for and taken possession of the rice.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    284 vues1 page

    Masiclat v. Centeno

    Transféré par

    Maria Analyn
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The Court of Appeals had awarded a disputed rice shipment to defendant Centeno rather than plaintiffs Masiclat, et al. The Supreme Court agreed that ownership of the rice was not transmitted to Masiclat, et al. because the evidence did not clearly show that Centeno was the person who sold the rice or that Masiclat, et al. had paid for and taken possession of the rice.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 1

    MASICLAT V.

    CENTENO
    Sales in merchant’s store, market, or fair | May 31, 1956

    SUMMARY: Herein case is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the CA


    reversing the judgment of the CFI of Pampanga and awarding the rice in question
    to defendant Centeno.

    DOCTRINE: Although a contract of sale is perfected upon the parties having agreed
    as to the thing which is the subject matter of the contract and the price, ownership
    is not considered transmitted until the property is actually delivered and the
    purchaser has taken possession thereof and has paid the price agreed upon.
    Legit 1 SCRA page lang yung case lol

    FACTS:
     The property in question is rice.
     The CFI Pampanga awarded the rice to Masiclat, et al.
     CA reversed CFI Pampanga, ruling in favor of Centeno.
     Masiclat, et al. filed this appeal by certiorari from the decision of the CA.

    ISSUE/S & RATIO:


    1. WON CA erred in awarding rice to defendant Centeno? – NO. Court affirmed
    CA.
     The appealed decision is correct.
    o First, because the evidence does not clearly show the identity of the
    person who tried to buy the rice from respondent Centeno, and
    neither does it show that the same person was the one who sold the
    commodity to Ramon Masiclat.
    o Second, although a contract of sale is perfected upon the parties
    having agreed as to the thing which is the subject matter of the
    contract and the price, ownership is not considered transmitted until
    the property is actually delivered and the purchaser has taken
    possession thereof and has paid the price agreed upon.

    RULING:

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi