Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    9 Sampaguita V Jalwindor

    Uploaded by

    Fatima Areej
    Sampaguita Pictures leased the roofdeck of its building to Capitol 300, with any permanent improvements made by Capitol belonging to Sampaguita. Capitol purchased glass and wooden jalousies from Jalwindor but did not pay, so Jalwindor filed a collection case and the items were considered security. Capitol then failed to pay rent to Sampaguita, who ejected them. When Jalwindor attempted to collect by auctioning the items, Sampaguita claimed ownership. The court ruled that based on the lease agreement, ownership of any permanent improvements transferred to Sampaguita, so Sampaguita was the lawful owner of the disputed items.

    Copyright:

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

    9 Sampaguita V Jalwindor

    Uploaded by

    Fatima Areej
    50 views1 page
    Sampaguita Pictures leased the roofdeck of its building to Capitol 300, with any permanent improvements made by Capitol belonging to Sampaguita. Capitol purchased glass and wooden jalousies from Jalwindor but did not pay, so Jalwindor filed a collection case and the items were considered security. Capitol then failed to pay rent to Sampaguita, who ejected them. When Jalwindor attempted to collect by auctioning the items, Sampaguita claimed ownership. The court ruled that based on the lease agreement, ownership of any permanent improvements transferred to Sampaguita, so Sampaguita was the lawful owner of the disputed items.

    Original Title

    9 Sampaguita v Jalwindor

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sampaguita Pictures leased the roofdeck of its building to Capitol 300, with any permanent improvements made by Capitol belonging to Sampaguita. Capitol purchased glass and wooden jalousies from Jalwindor but did not pay, so Jalwindor filed a collection case and the items were considered security. Capitol then failed to pay rent to Sampaguita, who ejected them. When Jalwindor attempted to collect by auctioning the items, Sampaguita claimed ownership. The court ruled that based on the lease agreement, ownership of any permanent improvements transferred to Sampaguita, so Sampaguita was the lawful owner of the disputed items.

    Copyright:

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

    9 Sampaguita V Jalwindor

    Uploaded by

    Fatima Areej
    Sampaguita Pictures leased the roofdeck of its building to Capitol 300, with any permanent improvements made by Capitol belonging to Sampaguita. Capitol purchased glass and wooden jalousies from Jalwindor but did not pay, so Jalwindor filed a collection case and the items were considered security. Capitol then failed to pay rent to Sampaguita, who ejected them. When Jalwindor attempted to collect by auctioning the items, Sampaguita claimed ownership. The court ruled that based on the lease agreement, ownership of any permanent improvements transferred to Sampaguita, so Sampaguita was the lawful owner of the disputed items.

    Copyright:

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

    AREEJ

    CASE NO. 9
    WRONGFUL TAKING OF MOVABLES TO WHICH LIEN ATTACHES (p. 653)
    Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. v. Jalwindor Manufacturers, Inc. | G.R. No. L-43059 October 11, 1979

    FACTS: Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. is the owner of the Sampaguita Pictures Building. The roofdeck thereof and all existing
    improvements thereon were leased by Sampaguita to Capitol 300, with the agreement that “all permanent improvements made by
    the lessee on the leased premises shall belong to the lessor.” Later, Capitol purchased from Jalwindor Manufacturers, Inc. glass and
    wooden jalousies which were delieered and installed in the leased premises. Due to Capitol’s failure to pay the said purchases,
    Jalwindor filed an action for collection of a sum of a money against Capitol. They later submitted to the court a Compromise
    Agreement wherein Capitol acknowledged its indebtedness, and pending liquidation of the said obligation, all the materials it
    purchased will be considered as security.

    In the meantime, Capitol failed to pay rentals to Sampaguita, prompting Sampaguita to file a complaint for ejectment and for
    collection of a sum of money. Capitol was ordered to vacate. On the other hand, Capitol likewise failed to comply with its
    Compromise Agreement with Jalwindor. Thus, the Sheriff made levy on the glass and wooden jalousies. Sampaguita filed a third
    party claim alleging that it is the owner of said materials and not Capitol. However, Jalwindor filed an indemnity bond and the items
    were sold at a public auction with Jalwindor as the highest bidder.

    Thus, Sampaguita filed an action before the CFI to nullify the Sheriff’s sale. Petition dismissed. MR denied. Hence, the petition.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Sampaguita is the lawful owner of the glass and wooden jalousies when they were sold by the Sheriff at the
    public auction.

    RULING: YES. Capitol entered into a lease Contract with Sampaguita, and the latter became the owner of the items in question by
    virtue of the agreement in said contract "that all permanent improvements made by lessee shall belong to the lessor and that said
    improvements have been considered as part of the monthly rentals." When levy or said items was made, Capitol, the judgment
    debtor, was no longer the owner thereof.

    The lessor (Sampaguita) of property under a contract which stipulates that the permanent improvements made by the lessee
    (Capitol) on the leased premises shall belong to the lessor, has a better right to such improvements than the manufacturer
    (Jalwindor) thereof who sold the same on credit to the lessee and has not been paid, where said improvements were delivered and
    installed in the leased premises, because ownership thereof was transferred to the lessee upon delivery, and to the lessor upon
    installation. Ownership is not transferred by perfection of the contract but by delivery, either actual or constructive. This is true even
    if the purchase has been made on credit, as in the case at bar. Payment of the purchase price is not essential to the transfer of
    ownership as long as the property sold has been delivered. Ownership is acquired from the moment the thing sold was delivered to
    vendee, as when it is placed in his control and possession.

    VERDICT: The decision appealed from is reversed, Sampaguita is declared the lawful owner of the disputed glass and wooden
    jalousies.

    You might also like