Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2827)
Facts:
- The case involves a dispute between Maria Lopez and Tan Tioco regarding the sale of sugar.
- Lopez and Tioco had a verbal agreement for Tioco to store 7,713.99 piculs of sugar until instructed to sell.
- Lopez instructed Tioco to sell the sugar on September 29, 1904, when the market value was higher.
- Tioco claimed he was authorized to sell the sugar on March 26, 1904, when the market price was lower.
- Lopez asserted that the balance due based on the September market value was 22,638.94 pesos.
- Tioco acknowledged a debt of only 1,082.95 pesos based on the earlier market value.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Tioco for the lower amount, leading Lopez to appeal.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court found no preponderance of evidence supporting Tioco's claim of authorization to sell on March 26, 1904.
- The market value of the sugar was credit...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The burden of proof lies with the party making an affirmative allegation; Tioco failed to substantiate his claim.
- Testimonies were contradictory, with Tioco's defense relying on limited understanding from a witness.
- Mere possession of receipts by Lopez did not prove she author...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2827)
Facts:
The case of Maria Lopez y Villanueva vs. Tan Tioco revolves around a dispute regarding the sale of sugar and the corresponding payment owed. The plaintiff, Maria Lopez, entered into a verbal agreement with the defendant, Tan Tioco, to deliver 7,713.99 piculs of sugar, which Tioco was to store in Iloilo until he received instructions from Lopez to sell it. According to Lopez, upon giving the instructions to sell on September 29, 1904, the market value of the sugar was significantly higher than when Tioco claims he received authority to sell it on March 26, 1904. Lopez contended that the market value on the day she instructed the sale should be credited to her account, amounting to a balance due of 22,638.94 pesos, Mexican currency.
In contrast, Tioco admitted to receiving the sugar but argued that he was authorized to sell it on March 26, 1904, when the market price was lower. He claimed that the balance due to Lopez, based on this earlier market value, was only 1,082.95 pesos, which he acknowledged as a debt. The trial court sided with Tioco, ruling in favor of Lopez for the lower amount of 1,082.95 pesos. Lopez appealed this decision, seeking a reversal and a judgment for the higher amount based on the market value at the time of her instructions to sell.
The trial court's decision was based on the evidence presented, which included conflicting testimonies regarding whether Lopez had indeed authorized Tioco to sell the sugar...