jurisprudence
•October 04, 1909Umali v. Malvar
AI Summary
Juan Umali filed a lawsuit against Miguel Malvar to recover a piano and damages for its retention. Malvar claimed possession of the piano as its owner since 1902 and argued the statute of limitations. The court found that Umali was the previous owner of the piano and that Malvar had taken possession of it claiming a debt owed to him by Umali. The court ruled in favor of Malval, stating that the action should have been commenced within four years, and therefore, had prescribed. Judgment was affirmed.
Highlight text to search for related legal issues in different cases
G.R. No. 5043
JUAN UMALI, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MIGUEL MALVAR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
MORELAND, J.:
[ G.R. No. 5043. October 04, 1909 ]
JUAN UMALI, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MIGUEL MALVAR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
D E C I S I O N
MORELAND, J.:
ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY; STATUE OF LIMITAIONS. — From the Court of First Instance of Batangas. Powell, J.
Plaintiff sought to recover the possession of a piano and damages for retention. Defendant alleged possession as owner from 1902 to the date of the trial, and set up the statute of limitations. The proofs show, conclusively, that the plaintiff was formerly the owner of the piano, that he sent it to Manila for the purpose of having it repaired, and that defendant took possession of it, claiming a right to it because of a debt owing to him by the plaintiff. Under section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure the action which should have been commenced within four years, held to have prescribed. Judgment affirmed.
Per Moreland, J.
For appellant: Fernando Leyco.
For appellee: Diokno & Causing.
Plaintiff sought to recover the possession of a piano and damages for retention. Defendant alleged possession as owner from 1902 to the date of the trial, and set up the statute of limitations. The proofs show, conclusively, that the plaintiff was formerly the owner of the piano, that he sent it to Manila for the purpose of having it repaired, and that defendant took possession of it, claiming a right to it because of a debt owing to him by the plaintiff. Under section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure the action which should have been commenced within four years, held to have prescribed. Judgment affirmed.
Per Moreland, J.
For appellant: Fernando Leyco.
For appellee: Diokno & Causing.