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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Gaite Vs Fonacier

    Uploaded by

    Joanna
    Fernando Gaite sued Isabelo Fonacier and others regarding a mining claim owned by Fonacier. Fonacier had appointed Gaite as his attorney-in-fact to develop the mining claims in exchange for royalties. Gaite then assigned development rights to Larap Mines. When Fonacier revoked Gaite's authority, they agreed Gaite would be paid $65,000, secured by a surety bond payable when Larap Mines sold $65,000 worth of ore. The court ruled the surety bond created a term for payment rather than a suspensive condition, as nothing indicated Gaite assumed the risk of non-payment. The sale of ore was intended to set the date of payment

    Copyright:

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

    Gaite Vs Fonacier

    Uploaded by

    Joanna
    16 views1 page
    Fernando Gaite sued Isabelo Fonacier and others regarding a mining claim owned by Fonacier. Fonacier had appointed Gaite as his attorney-in-fact to develop the mining claims in exchange for royalties. Gaite then assigned development rights to Larap Mines. When Fonacier revoked Gaite's authority, they agreed Gaite would be paid $65,000, secured by a surety bond payable when Larap Mines sold $65,000 worth of ore. The court ruled the surety bond created a term for payment rather than a suspensive condition, as nothing indicated Gaite assumed the risk of non-payment. The sale of ore was intended to set the date of payment

    Original Title

    gaite vs fonacier

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Fernando Gaite sued Isabelo Fonacier and others regarding a mining claim owned by Fonacier. Fonacier had appointed Gaite as his attorney-in-fact to develop the mining claims in exchange for royalties. Gaite then assigned development rights to Larap Mines. When Fonacier revoked Gaite's authority, they agreed Gaite would be paid $65,000, secured by a surety bond payable when Larap Mines sold $65,000 worth of ore. The court ruled the surety bond created a term for payment rather than a suspensive condition, as nothing indicated Gaite assumed the risk of non-payment. The sale of ore was intended to set the date of payment

    Copyright:

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

    Gaite Vs Fonacier

    Uploaded by

    Joanna
    Fernando Gaite sued Isabelo Fonacier and others regarding a mining claim owned by Fonacier. Fonacier had appointed Gaite as his attorney-in-fact to develop the mining claims in exchange for royalties. Gaite then assigned development rights to Larap Mines. When Fonacier revoked Gaite's authority, they agreed Gaite would be paid $65,000, secured by a surety bond payable when Larap Mines sold $65,000 worth of ore. The court ruled the surety bond created a term for payment rather than a suspensive condition, as nothing indicated Gaite assumed the risk of non-payment. The sale of ore was intended to set the date of payment

    Copyright:

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

    FERNANDO A. GAITE vs.

    ISABELO FONACIER,GEORGE KRAKOWER,LARAP MINES &


    SMELTING CO., INC., SEGUNDINA VIVAS,FRANCISCO DANTE,PACIFICO ESCANDOR and
    FERNANDO TY
    G.R. No. L-11827 July 31, 1961
    REYES, J.B.L., J.:

    Facts: Fonacier was the owner and/or holder of 11 iron lode mineral claims, known as the Dawahan Group. By a
    Deed of Assignment, Fonacier constituted and appointed Gaite as his true and lawfull attorney-in-fact to enter into a
    contract with any individual or juridical person for the exploration and development of the mining claims
    aforementioned on a royalty basis of not less than P0.50 per ton of ore that might be extracted therefrom. Then, aite
    executed a general assignment conveying the development and exploitation of said mining claims into the Larap
    Iron Mines, in which he extracted therefrom what he claimed and estimated to be approximately 24,000 metric tons
    of iron ore. Fonacier decided to revoke the authority granted by him to Gaite, and the latter assented thereto subject
    to certain conditions – to secure the payment of the P65,000.00 balance, Fonacier executed a surety bond in favor of
    Gaite, but it provided that the liability of the surety company would attach only when there had been an actual sale
    of iron ore by the Larap Mines & Smelting Co. for an amount of not less than P65,000.00.

    Issue: Whether or not the obligation of Fonacier is one with a period or term and not one with a suspensive condition

    Ruling: Yes. The shipment or local sale of the iron ore is not a condition precedent (or suspensive) to the payment of
    the balance of P65,000.00, but was only a suspensive period or term. What characterizes a conditional obligation is
    the fact that its efficacy or obligatory force (as distinguished from its demandability) is subordinated to the
    happening of a future and uncertain event; so that if the suspensive condition does not take place, the parties would
    stand as if the conditional obligation had never existed.

    A contract of sale is normally commutative and onerous: not only does each one of the parties assume a correlative
    obligation (the seller to deliver and transfer ownership of the thing sold and the buyer to pay the price), but each
    party anticipates performance by the other from the very start. While in a sale the obligation of one party can be
    lawfully subordinated to an uncertain event, so that the other understands that he assumes the risk of receiving
    nothing for what he gives (as in the case of a sale of hopes or expectations, emptio spei), it is not in the usual course
    of business to do so; hence, the contingent character of the obligation must clearly appear. Nothing is found in the
    record to evidence that Gaite desired or assumed to run the risk of losing his right over the ore without getting paid
    for it, or that Fonacier understood that Gaite assumed any such risk.

    The only rational view that can be taken is that the sale of the ore to Fonacier was a sale on credit, and not an
    aleatory contract where the transferor, Gaite, would assume the risk of not being paid at all; and that the previous
    sale or shipment of the ore was not a suspensive condition for the payment of the balance of the agreed price, but
    was intended merely to fix the future date of the payment.

    You might also like