Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 165 views

    15 Martinez V Martinez

    Uploaded by

    G S
    Francisco Martinez bought two vessels for his own benefit, but the purchase price was paid by his father, Pedro Martinez. Pedro later sued Francisco to recover ownership of the vessels since he paid for them. The court held that while Pedro may have a claim against Francisco for the money paid or damages, the payment did not transfer legal or equitable title of the vessels to Pedro without an express obligation from Francisco to do so under the Civil Code or special laws. The judgment against Francisco was reversed and a new trial was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    15 Martinez V Martinez

    Uploaded by

    G S
    165 views1 page
    Francisco Martinez bought two vessels for his own benefit, but the purchase price was paid by his father, Pedro Martinez. Pedro later sued Francisco to recover ownership of the vessels since he paid for them. The court held that while Pedro may have a claim against Francisco for the money paid or damages, the payment did not transfer legal or equitable title of the vessels to Pedro without an express obligation from Francisco to do so under the Civil Code or special laws. The judgment against Francisco was reversed and a new trial was granted.

    Original Description:

    Obligations and Contracts; Civil Law

    Original Title

    15 Martinez v Martinez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Francisco Martinez bought two vessels for his own benefit, but the purchase price was paid by his father, Pedro Martinez. Pedro later sued Francisco to recover ownership of the vessels since he paid for them. The court held that while Pedro may have a claim against Francisco for the money paid or damages, the payment did not transfer legal or equitable title of the vessels to Pedro without an express obligation from Francisco to do so under the Civil Code or special laws. The judgment against Francisco was reversed and a new trial was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    165 views1 page

    15 Martinez V Martinez

    Uploaded by

    G S
    Francisco Martinez bought two vessels for his own benefit, but the purchase price was paid by his father, Pedro Martinez. Pedro later sued Francisco to recover ownership of the vessels since he paid for them. The court held that while Pedro may have a claim against Francisco for the money paid or damages, the payment did not transfer legal or equitable title of the vessels to Pedro without an express obligation from Francisco to do so under the Civil Code or special laws. The judgment against Francisco was reversed and a new trial was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    Article 1158. Title to property purchased by a person for his own benefit but paid by another.

    Francisco Martinez vs. Pedro Martinez, G.R. No. 858, 23 January 1903, Willard [J].

    Facts: X, of legal age, bought two vessels (Balayan and Ongono) from B, the purchase price thereof
    being paid by C, X’s father. Subsequently, differences arose between X and C. The latter brought action
    to recover the vessels, he having paid the purchase price.

    Issue: Is there any obligation on the part of X to transfer the ownership of the vessel to C?

    Held: None. If any such obligation was ever created on the part of X, said obligation must arise from
    law. But obligations derived from law See Arts. 194, 195, Family Code. Art. 1158 are not presumed. Only
    those expressly determined in the Civil Code or in special laws are demandable. Whatever right C may
    have against X either for the recovery of the money paid or for damages, it is clear that such payment
    gave him no title, either legal or equitable, to these vessels. (Martinez vs. Martinez, 1 Phil. 647 [1902].)

    Fallo: The judgment is reversed and a new trial is granted with costs against the appellee.

    You might also like