INSTRUCTIONS FOR 

TASK NO. 3 (FINAL PERIOD)

 
1. For our online/synchronous class this coming Monday please refer to the announcement I
made in the Facebook Messenger. Attached therewith is the copy of the PowerPoint that we'll
be utilizing for said online/synchronous class. Study the whole PowerPoint as we'll have a
graded recitation. You can conduct further readings and researches relating to the topics to be
discussed; 

2. Read and study this case, either thru its full text or digest or both.
2.1. ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST vs. T.J. ENTERPRISES, G.R. No. 167195 May 8, 2009
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_167195_2009.html)

3. After reading and analyzing the said case or its digest, fill up this Table with your answers:
Questions Answers
1. . Who were the 2 Asset Privatization Trust - petitioner
contending parties or persons
in the case? T.J. Enterprise - respondent
2. What are the important Asset Privatization Trust, the petitioner, was a government
facts in the said case that are organization established with the purpose of conserving,
also related to the topics in the temporarily managing, and disposing of the assets of
above-mentioned PowerPoint? government organizations. It acquired assets from the
Development Bank of the Philippines, including machinery
and refrigeration equipment, and stored them at Golden City
Compound in Pasay City. Creative Lines, Inc. later leased the
Compound and took ownership of it (Creative Lines). These
assets were sold on an as-is-where-is basis.

Both petitioner and respondent entered to an absolute deed

of sale over certain machinery and refrigeration equipment,
which the respondent paid the full amount as evident by the
petitioner’s receipt. Two days later, the response made a
delivery request for the machinery it had purchased. In order
for the respondents to be able to remove the designated
properties from the compound, the petitioner issued a gate
pass; however, they were only successful in obtaining nine of
the sixteen items in Lot 2. The respondent was prevented
from moving the remaining machinery and equipment by the
employees of Creative Lines.

The RTC ruled that the petitioner is liable for the actual
damages incurred by the respondents as a result of the
breach of contract. It was determined that the petitioner had
no control over the machinery and equipment at the time of
 the transaction, ruling out the possibility of a constructive
delivery of ownership. The RTC's decisions were upheld by
the Court of Appeals.
3. What is the issue or dispute Does the petitioner fulfilled its obligation on delivering the
in the said case or why were machinery and equipment?
those parties contending with
each other?
4. What were the arguments or The respondent claimed that the petitioner failed to fulfill its
standpoint or reasoning of the responsibility to deliver the object because the employees of
2 parties or persons Creative Lines prevented the respondent from obtaining the
contending in said case? remaining machinery and equipment while they were
hauling.

The petitioner claimed that they already fulfilled their

obligation of delivering the object of sale upon the execution
of the deed of sale, and because it was a "as-is, where-is"
basis, the respondents were required to take possession of
the property. Furthermore, they asserted that the machinery
and equipment had already been delivered constructively.
5. Give the brief decision or The Court affirms the CA's rulings that the machinery and
ruling of the Supreme Court equipment were not constructively delivered as a result of
and explain briefly why it is the execution of the deed of absolute sale in its entirety. It
related to the topic. was found that the petitioner had no control over the
machinery and equipment at the time of the transaction,
ruling out the possibility of a constructive delivery of
ownership. And therefore, the petitioner is accountable for
contract violation and must cover the respondent's actual
losses.

This case is connected to some topics included in the

Powerpoint (ppt) because:

 This case involves a contract for sale, under which the

seller is obliged by the New Civil Code (NCC) to
transfer ownership and deliver a specific item, and the
buyer is required to pay the agreed amount in cash or
its equivalent. In this instance, the petitioner and
respondent enter into an absolute deed of sale for the
machinery and equipment, and the respondents pay
the full price as shown by the petitioner's receipt.
 Additionally, the New Civil Code contains a Sales-
Obligation. The vendor has a list of obligations to
comply, and one of those is to deliver the item,
 whether it be by actual delivery or constructive
delivery. In this instance, the petitioner lacked
authority over the machinery and equipment, making
it impossible for ownership to have been transferred
by constructive conveyance.

4. Make the said Table in a Word document and submit the same to me via GOOGLE
CLASSROOM on or before the START OF OUR CLASS SESSION THIS COMING MONDAY.

 Stay safe and God bless!