Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Pacific Farms Inc Vs Esguerra

    Uploaded by

    Gladys Laureta Garcia
    This document is a resolution from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a motion for reconsideration of a previous decision. [1] The plaintiff-appellee Pacific Farms argued it should not be liable to pay for lumber and materials provided by the defendant-appellant Carried Lumber Company to a previous owner. [2] However, the Court denied this argument as it had previously ruled the plaintiff was a good faith purchaser but still received the benefit of the materials by owning the buildings. [3] Therefore, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld its prior ruling requiring the plaintiff to pay the remaining unpaid costs of the materials or lose ownership of the buildings via a sheriff's sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Pacific Farms Inc Vs Esguerra

    Uploaded by

    Gladys Laureta Garcia
    37 views2 pages
    This document is a resolution from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a motion for reconsideration of a previous decision. [1] The plaintiff-appellee Pacific Farms argued it should not be liable to pay for lumber and materials provided by the defendant-appellant Carried Lumber Company to a previous owner. [2] However, the Court denied this argument as it had previously ruled the plaintiff was a good faith purchaser but still received the benefit of the materials by owning the buildings. [3] Therefore, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld its prior ruling requiring the plaintiff to pay the remaining unpaid costs of the materials or lose ownership of the buildings via a sheriff's sale.

    Original Title

    2. Pacific Farms Inc vs Esguerra

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a resolution from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a motion for reconsideration of a previous decision. [1] The plaintiff-appellee Pacific Farms argued it should not be liable to pay for lumber and materials provided by the defendant-appellant Carried Lumber Company to a previous owner. [2] However, the Court denied this argument as it had previously ruled the plaintiff was a good faith purchaser but still received the benefit of the materials by owning the buildings. [3] Therefore, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld its prior ruling requiring the plaintiff to pay the remaining unpaid costs of the materials or lose ownership of the buildings via a sheriff's sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views2 pages

    Pacific Farms Inc Vs Esguerra

    Uploaded by

    Gladys Laureta Garcia
    This document is a resolution from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a motion for reconsideration of a previous decision. [1] The plaintiff-appellee Pacific Farms argued it should not be liable to pay for lumber and materials provided by the defendant-appellant Carried Lumber Company to a previous owner. [2] However, the Court denied this argument as it had previously ruled the plaintiff was a good faith purchaser but still received the benefit of the materials by owning the buildings. [3] Therefore, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld its prior ruling requiring the plaintiff to pay the remaining unpaid costs of the materials or lose ownership of the buildings via a sheriff's sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. L-21783 March 25, 1970 chanrobles virtual law library

    PACIFIC FARMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SIMPLICIO G. ESGUERRA,


    ET AL., defendants, CARRIED LUMBER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

    RESOLUTION chanrobles virtual law library

    CASTRO, J.:

    Subject of this resolution is a motion filed by the plaintiff-appellee Pacific


    Farms, Inc. for reconsideration of our decision of November 29, 1969. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

    Briefly stated, the plaintiff-appellee's first argument is that it should not


    have been found liable for the payment of the unpaid portion of the
    procurement price of the lumber and construction materials furnished by the
    appellant to its predecessor-in-interest, the Insular Farms, Inc., because it
    was a purchaser for value and in good faith of the six buildings in question.
    The flaw in this argument lies in its assumption that the reason we held the
    appellee liable is that it was not a buyer in good faith and for value, which is
    incorrect. When we applied article 447 of the Civil Code by analogy to this
    case, we did so on the assumption that the plaintiff-appellee was in good
    faith. Thus, after quoting said article, we stated:

    Although it does not appear from the records of this case that the land upon
    which the six buildings were built is owned by the appellee, nevertheless,
    that the appellee claims that it owns the six buildings constructed out of the
    lumber and construction materials furnished by the appellant, is indubitable.
    Therefore, applying article 447 by analogy, we perforce consider the
    buildings as the principal and the lumber and construction materials that
    went into their construction as the accessory. Thus the appellee, if it does
    own the six buildings, must bear the obligation to pay for the values of the
    said materials; the appellant - which apparently has no desire to remove the
    materials, and, even if it were minded to do so, cannot remove them without
    necessarily damaging the buildings - has the corresponding right to recover
    the value of the unpaid lumber and construction materials. (Decision, pp. 4-
    5; emphasis supplied)

    Indeed, because we assumed that the appellee was in good faith, we did not
    pronounce it liable for the reparation of damages but only for the payment of
    the unpaid price of the lumber and construction materials due to the
    appellant as unpaid furnisher thereof. Based on this same assumption, we
    likewise held that the appellant has no right to remove the materials but
    only to recovery the value of the unpaid lumber and construction materials.
    Thus, since the appellee benefited from the accession, i.e., from the lumber
    and materials that went into the construction of the six buildings, it should
    shoulder the compensation due to the appellant as unpaid furnisher of
    materials, pursuant to the rule we cited in our decision that compensation
    should be borne by the person who has been benefited by the accession.
    library
    chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law

    Under the overall environmental circumstances of the case, considering that


    although the appellee was in a better position to protect its own interest it
    took no action to intervene in the suit filed by the appellant against the
    Insular Farms, Inc. or to hold the latter to account therefor, notwithstanding
    that it concededly acquired knowledge, after its purchase from the Insular
    Farms, Inc., on March 21, 1958 of the six buildings in question; of the filing
    and pendency of the appellant's suit for payment of the unpaid balance of
    the price of the lumber and construction materials delivered to the Insular
    Farms, Inc. and used in the construction of the said buildings, the Court
    believes that its decision upholding the sheriff's sale of the six buildings but
    granting the appellee the option of redeeming the same by paying to the
    appellant the unpaid balance with interest owing to it as supplier of the
    construction materials, is completely in consonance with justice and
    equity. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

    ACCORDINGLY, the plaintiff-appellee's motion for reconsideration dated


    December 12, 1969 is hereby denied.

    Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando,


    Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

    You might also like