Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Masiclat Vs Centeno Digest

    Uploaded by

    CharisseCastillo
    468 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision awarding a bag of rice to the defendant. While a contract for sale was agreed upon, ownership was not transmitted because the rice was never delivered nor was the price paid. The evidence did not clearly identify who tried to purchase the rice from the defendant or who later sold it to the plaintiff.

    Original Description:

    SALES

    Original Title

    Masiclat vs Centeno Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision awarding a bag of rice to the defendant. While a contract for sale was agreed upon, ownership was not transmitted because the rice was never delivered nor was the price paid. The evidence did not clearly identify who tried to purchase the rice from the defendant or who later sold it to the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    468 views1 page

    Masiclat Vs Centeno Digest

    Uploaded by

    CharisseCastillo
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision awarding a bag of rice to the defendant. While a contract for sale was agreed upon, ownership was not transmitted because the rice was never delivered nor was the price paid. The evidence did not clearly identify who tried to purchase the rice from the defendant or who later sold it to the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LUCENA MASICLAT, ET AL. vs.

    NATALIA
    CENTENO [G. R. No. L-8420. May 31, 1956]

    AUTHOR: CHA
    NOTES: Super short nung case as in or 1 page lang..

    TOPIC: Sale in Merchants Store, Market or Fair


    PONENTE: Paras
    FACTS:
    - 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 the defendant.
    ISSUE: WON CA erred in awarding rice to the defendant?
    HELD: NO. Court affirmed CA.
    RATIO:
    - The appealed decision is correct, first, because the evidence does not clearly show the identity of the person who tried to
    buy the rice from the respondent, and neither does it show that the same person was the one who sold the commodity to
    Ramon Masiclat; and, 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.
    CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
    DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

    You might also like