You are on page 1of 1

Masiclat v Centeno

May 31, 1956| Paras, J.| Sale in Merchants Store, Market or Fair
FACTS:
(No actual facts from the case, this is taken from another digest. Sorry, guys!)
Natalia Centeno is the owner of 15 sacks of rice. She offered the same for sale at her
store which is near a public market.
An unknown person came up to her and offered to purchase the 15 sacks of rice. After
bargaining, they agreed that the sacks would be priced at P26.00 per sack.
The buyer promised to pay as soon as he receives the price of his adobe stones which
were then being unloaded from a truck owned by Francisco Tan at the opposite side of
the street facing Centenos store.
Relying on the buyers promise, Centeno ordered that the 15 sacks of rice be loaded
onto the truck of which Lucena Masiclat was the caretaker. However, after the adobe
stones were unloaded, the buyer was nowhere to be found.
Centeno ordered the unloadin of the rice from the truck to which Masiclat objected
saying her has already bought them at P26.00 per sack from an unknown person earlier
that day.
Policemen came and so the rice was deposited in the municipal building pending
investigation.
Masiclat initiated this action for recovery of possession of the rice.
ISSUES:
1. WON a contract of sale was consummated between Centeno and the unknown
purchaser NO
2. WON Masiclat has a better right to the possession of the rice NO
RATIO:
The evidence does not clearly show the identity of the person who tried to buy the rice
from Centeno. It wasnt clear if that person is the same person who sold the commodity
to Ramon Masiclat.
Sale was not consummated because although she let the rice be loaded onto the truck,
she did not intend to transfer the ownership until she was paid. She was intently
watching the rice and ordered the unloading when the purchaser went missing.
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.
Masiclats contention: general principle of law where one of two persons must suffer by
the fraud of a third, the loss should fall upon him who has enabled the third person to do
the wrong is untenable.
o No finding that the unknown person was both the buyer of Centeno and seller of
Masiclat.
o Centeno could not have been so negligent as to allow an unknown purchaser to
run away with said rice and enable him to sell it to Masiclat.

You might also like