LIM v.
PEOPLE
G.R. No. L-34338
November 21, 1984
Relova, J.:
DOCTRINE:
Article 1197. If the obligation does not fix a period, but from
its nature and the circumstance it can be inferred that a
period was intended, the courts may fix the duration thereof.
The courts shall also fix the duration of the period when it
depends upon the will of the debtor
In every case, the courts shall determine such period as may
under the circumstances have been probably contemplated
by the parties. Once fixed by the courts, the period cannot
be changed by them.
FACTS:
On January 10, 1966, Petitioner Lim, a businesswoman,
proposed to sell the tobacco of Maria Ayroso which consisted
of 615 kilos of tobacco to be sold for P1.30 per kilo
whereupon Ayroso agreed to the same. The overprice from
the agreement was to be given to petitioner Lim upon the
sale of the tobacco. The agreement was witnessed by
Ayrosos maid Genoveva Ruiz and her sister Salud Bantug,
who also drew the document, signed by the two parties. It
states:
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to certify that I have received from Mrs. Maria de
Guzman Vda. de Ayroso. of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, six
hundred fifteen kilos of leaf tobacco to be sold at Pl.30
per kilo. The proceeds in the amount of Seven Hundred
Ninety Nine Pesos and 50/100 (P 799.50) will be given
to her as soon as it was sold.
Demands for payment of the balance of the value for the
tobacco were made by Ayroso, particularly through her
sister Salud Bantug. Bantug further testified that she made
several trips to petitioners house but the same eluded her.
Petitioner Lim denied these allegations but admitted that
she wrote a letter to Bantug stating that she was not able to
go to Ayrosos house because it was hard for her to collect
money from the Cabanatuan market and only a few
customers were buying from her.
Pursuant to this letter, the petitioner Lim sent a money order
for P100.00 on October 24, 1967, P50.00 on March 8, 1967,
and P90.00 on April 18, 1967. However, no further amounts
were paid by petitioner. Of the total value of P799.50, the
she had paid to Ayroso only P240.00. Consequently, Ayroso
filed a criminal complaint against petitioner for estafa.
ISSUE/S:
Whether the receipt is a contract of agency to sell or a
contract of sale of the subject tobacco between petitioner
and the complainant, thereby precluding criminal liability of
petitioner for the crime charged
Whether or not the Article 1197 is applicable in the case at
bar (relevant)
HELD:
The court held that, it is clear in the agreement, that the
proceeds of the sale of the tobacco should be turned over to
the complainant as soon as the same was sold, or, that the
obligation was immediately demandable as soon as the
tobacco was disposed of. Hence, Article 1197 of the New
Civil Code, which provides that the courts may fix the
duration of the obligation if it does not fix a period, does not
apply.
The fact that appellant received the tobacco to be sold at
P1.30 per kilo and the proceeds to be given to complainant
as soon as it was sold, strongly negates transfer of
ownership of the goods to the petitioner. The agreement constituted her as an agent with the obligation to return the
tobacco if the same was not sold.