Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 214 views

    Gaite V Fonacier CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Ronald Lasin
    This case involves a dispute over payment for iron ore extracted from mining claims. Fonacier revoked Gaite's authority to develop the claims and agreed to pay for ore already extracted. A balance remained unpaid when Fonacier's surety bond expired. The lower court ruled the obligation was due under the Civil Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the obligation had a term that expired when Fonacier failed to renew the bond. It also found no error in the estimated quantity of ore sold, as the contract specified a lump sum for a fungible good estimated to be "24,000 tons, more or less."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gaite V Fonacier CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Ronald Lasin
    214 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over payment for iron ore extracted from mining claims. Fonacier revoked Gaite's authority to develop the claims and agreed to pay for ore already extracted. A balance remained unpaid when Fonacier's surety bond expired. The lower court ruled the obligation was due under the Civil Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the obligation had a term that expired when Fonacier failed to renew the bond. It also found no error in the estimated quantity of ore sold, as the contract specified a lump sum for a fungible good estimated to be "24,000 tons, more or less."

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Gaite v Fonacier CASE DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over payment for iron ore extracted from mining claims. Fonacier revoked Gaite's authority to develop the claims and agreed to pay for ore already extracted. A balance remained unpaid when Fonacier's surety bond expired. The lower court ruled the obligation was due under the Civil Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the obligation had a term that expired when Fonacier failed to renew the bond. It also found no error in the estimated quantity of ore sold, as the contract specified a lump sum for a fungible good estimated to be "24,000 tons, more or less."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    214 views2 pages

    Gaite V Fonacier CASE DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Ronald Lasin
    This case involves a dispute over payment for iron ore extracted from mining claims. Fonacier revoked Gaite's authority to develop the claims and agreed to pay for ore already extracted. A balance remained unpaid when Fonacier's surety bond expired. The lower court ruled the obligation was due under the Civil Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the obligation had a term that expired when Fonacier failed to renew the bond. It also found no error in the estimated quantity of ore sold, as the contract specified a lump sum for a fungible good estimated to be "24,000 tons, more or less."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-11827 July 31, 1961

    GAITE vs. FONACIER

    FACTS:

    Fonacier, owner of 11 iron lode mineral claims (Dawahan Group) in Camarines Norte,
    constituted a "Deed of Assignment, and appointed Gaite as his true and lawful attorney-in-
    fact to enter into a contract for its exploration and development on a royalty basis.

    Gaite executed a general assignment to the Larap Iron Mines owned solely by him. However,
    Fonacier decided to revoke the authority granted which he assented. Said revocation
    included the transfer to Fonacier the rights and interests over the "24,000 tons of iron ore,
    more or less" already extracted for a certain consideration.

    A balance has to be paid. To secure it, Fonacier delivered to Gaite a surety bond. When it
    expired, no payment had been made by Fonacier on the theory that they had lost right to
    make use of the period when their bond expired.

    Gaite filed a complaint in court for its payment. The lower court ruled the obligation was
    one with a term and that the obligation became due and demandable under Article 1198 of
    the New Civil Code.

    Hence, the defendants jointly filed an appeal.

    ISSUES:

    1. WON the lower court erred in holding that the obligation of Fonacier to pay Gaite is
    one with a period or term and that the term has already expired.

    2. WON the lower court erred in not holding that there were lesser tons of iron ore in
    the stockpiles sold to Fonacier.

    HELD:

    On Issue No. 1

    No.

    If the suspensive condition does not take place, the parties would stand as if the conditional
    obligation had never existed. The parties did not intend such state. The words of the
    contract expressed that obligation to pay and intended Gaite to be paid.
    The sale of the ore to Fonacier was a sale on credit, not an aleatory contract. For their
    failure to renew the bond, the appellant have forfeited the right to compel Gaite to wait for
    the sale of the ore before receiving payment of the balance.

    Under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 1198 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the debtor
    shall lose every right to make use of the period:
    When he does not furnish to the creditor the guaranties or securities which he has
    promised.
    When by his own acts he has impaired said guaranties or securities after their
    establishment, and when through fortuitous event they disappear, unless he
    immediately gives new ones equally satisfactory.

    Gaite's acceptance of the surety company's bond with full knowledge it would automatically
    expire within a year was not a waiver of its renewal after the expiration date. The balance
    became due and payable thereafter.

    On Issue No. 2

    No.

    This is a case of a sale of a specific mass of fungible goods for a single price or a lump sum.
    The quantity of "24,000 tons of iron ore, more or less," stated in the contract is a mere
    estimate by the parties. A reasonable percentage of error should be allowed because
    neither of the parties had actually measured of weighed the mass.

    In addition, no provision was made in their contract for the measuring or weighing of the
    ore sold in order to complete or perfect the sale, nor was the price agreed upon by the
    parties based upon any such measurement. When Gaite complied with his promise to
    deliver, the appellants, in turn, are bound to pay the lump price.

    You might also like