LUCENA MASICLAT, ET AL., petitioner, vs. NATALIA CENTENO, respondent. Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga and awarding the rice in question to the defendant. 1044 The appealed decision is correct, first, because the evidence does not clearly show the identity of the pferson who tried to buy the rice from the respondent, and neither does it show that the same person was the one who sold the commodity to Ramon Masiclat; and, second, although a cojitraet of sale is perfected upon the parties having agreed as to the thing which is the subject matter of the contract and the price (Warner, Barnes & Co. vs. Inza, 43 Phil., 505; Article 1475, Civil Code), ownership is not considered transmitted until the property is actually delivered and the purchaser has taken possession thereof and has paid the price agreed upon (Roman vs. Grimalt, 6 Phil., 96; Article 1524, Civil Code). Judgment appealed from affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. Paras, C. J. y ponente. ____________ Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.