Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82553:56415&catid=1577&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:54:28+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 200602, December 11, 2013 - ACE FOODS, INC., Petitioners, v. MICRO PACIFIC TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,1 Respondent.
ACE FOODS, INC., Petitioners, v. MICRO PACIFIC TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,1Respondent.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari2 are the Decision3 dated October 21, 2011 and Resolution4 dated February 8, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 89426 which reversed and set aside the Decision5 dated February 28, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 148 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 02-1248, holding petitioner ACE Foods, Inc. (ACE Foods) liable to respondent Micro Pacific Technologies Co., Ltd. (MTCL) for the payment of Cisco Routers and Frame Relay Products (subject products) amounting to P646,464.00 pursuant to a perfected contract of sale.
VALIDITY : Prices are based on current dollar rate and subject to changes without prior notice.
WARRANTY : One (1) year on parts and services. Accessories not included in warranty.
Aggrieved, ACE Foods moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied in a Resolution32 dated February 8, 2012, hence, this petition.
The essential issue in this case is whether ACE Foods should pay MTCL the purchase price for the subject products.
Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.
Art. 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price.
From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts.
In the present case, it has not been shown that the title reservation stipulation appearing in the Invoice Receipt had been included or had subsequently modified or superseded the original agreement of the parties. The fact that the Invoice Receipt was signed by a representative of ACE Foods does not, by and of itself, prove animus novandi since: (a) it was not shown that the signatory was authorized by ACE Foods (the actual party to the transaction) to novate the original agreement; (b) the signature only proves that the Invoice Receipt was received by a representative of ACE Foods to show the fact of delivery; and (c) as matter of judicial notice, invoices are generally issued at the consummation stage of the contract and not its perfection, and have been even treated as documents which are not actionable per se, although they may prove sufficient delivery.39 Thus, absent any clear indication that the title reservation stipulation was actually agreed upon, the Court must deem the same to be a mere unilateral imposition on the part of MTCL which has no effect on the nature of the parties’ original agreement as a contract of sale. Perforce, the obligations arising thereto, among others, ACE Foods’s obligation to pay the purchase price as well as to accept the delivery of the goods,40 remain enforceable and subsisting.
As a final point, it may not be amiss to state that the return of the subject products pursuant to a rescissory action41 is neither warranted by ACE Foods’s claims of breach – either with respect to MTCL’s breach of its purported “after delivery services” obligations or the defective condition of the products – since such claims were not adequately proven in this case. The rule is clear: each party must prove his own affirmative allegation; one who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of presenting at the trial such amount of evidence required by law to obtain a favorable judgment, which in civil cases, is by preponderance of evidence.42 This, however, ACE Foods failed to observe as regards its allegations of breach. Hence, the same cannot be sustained.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen,* JJ., concur.
* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1627.
1 “Micropacific Technologies, Co., Ltd.” in some parts of the records.
3 Id. at 10-17. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
5 Id. at 87-93. Penned by Judge Oscar B. Pimentel.
13 Id. at 56. On September 3, 2002, MTCL sent a demand letter to ACE Foods, seeking payment for the said products in the amount of P646,464.00; id. at 105.
16 Id. at 56 and 87.
19 Id. at 56 and 57.
33Tan v. Benolirao, G.R. No. 153820, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 36, 48, citing Quiroga v. Parsons Hardware Co., 38 Phil. 501, 506 (1918).
34Ayala Life Assurance, Inc. v. Ray Burton Development Corporation, G.R. No. 163075, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 462, 467-468.
36Sps. Dalion v. CA, G.R. No. 78903, 261 Phil. 1033, 1039 (1990).
37Tan v. Benolirao, supra note 33, at 48-49.
38Ocampo-Paule v. CA, G.R. No. 145872, 426 Phil. 463, 470 (2002), citing Quinto v. People, 365 Phil. 259, 267 (1999).
39 “The charge invoices are not actionable documents.
Based on the foregoing provision, a document is actionable when an action or defense is grounded upon such written instrument or document. In the instant case, the Charge Invoices are not actionable documents per se as these “only provide details on the alleged transactions.” These documents need not be attached to or stated in the complaint as these are evidentiary in nature. In fact, respondent’s cause of action is not based on these documents but on the contract of sale between the parties.
Art. 1582. The vendee is bound to accept delivery and to pay the price of the thing sold at the time and place stipulated in the contract.
42Tongson v. CA, G.R. No. 77104, November 6, 1992, 215 SCRA 426, 432-433.

References: v. 
 v. 

Art. 1458

Art. 1475
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

Art. 1582
 v.