G.R. No. L‑2827
October 3, 1907

FACTS
Maria Lopez (plaintiff) and Tan Tioco (defendant) entered into a verbal contract whereby Tioco would store 7,713.99 piculs of sugar in Iloilo and, upon Lopez’s instruction, sell it and credit her account with the market value at the time of sale. Lopez delivered the sugar and, on 29 Sept 1904, instructed Tioco to sell it. She claimed the balance due should be computed on the market price at the filing of the complaint (1 Dec 1904). Tioco contended that he had received authority to sell on 26 Mar 1904 and thus the balance was only ₱1,082.95. The trial court adopted Tioco’s version and awarded that amount. Lopez appealed, denying any authority was given on 26 Mar 1904.

ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the sugar valued at the market price on the date she first communicated the instruction to sell (29 Sept 1904) rather than the alleged earlier verbal authority claimed by the defendant, and consequently what the correct balance due is.

RULING
The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the affirmative allegation of authority to sell rests on the defendant. No competent evidence was presented to substantiate Tioco’s claim of a verbal authority on 26 Mar 1904; Lopez’s denial and the contradictory, inconclusive testimonies failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, the contract required crediting the plaintiff with the market value on the date the instruction to sell was first given (29 Sept 1904). Applying the proven market price, the correct balance in favor of Lopez is ₱8,712.53 (Mexican currency), with legal interest from the filing date. The trial court’s judgment is reversed and a new judgment entered for the plaintiff.

Concurrence: Torres, Willard, Tracey JJ.
Dissent: Arellano C.J., Johnson J.