Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 793 views

    Aguila Vs CA - DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    I took her to my penthouse and i freaked it
    The petitioner is the manager of a partnership engaged in lending activities. The private respondent and her late husband owned a house and lot, and entered into an agreement with the petitioner's partnership to sell the property for 200,000 pesos with an option to repurchase it within 90 days for 230,000 pesos. The private respondent failed to repurchase the property. The petitioner contends that he is not the real party in interest, but rather it is the partnership. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Code, a partnership has a separate legal personality from its partners, and the real party in interest is the partnership since the property is registered under its name.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aguila Vs CA - DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    I took her to my penthouse and i freaked it
    793 views1 page
    The petitioner is the manager of a partnership engaged in lending activities. The private respondent and her late husband owned a house and lot, and entered into an agreement with the petitioner's partnership to sell the property for 200,000 pesos with an option to repurchase it within 90 days for 230,000 pesos. The private respondent failed to repurchase the property. The petitioner contends that he is not the real party in interest, but rather it is the partnership. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Code, a partnership has a separate legal personality from its partners, and the real party in interest is the partnership since the property is registered under its name.

    Original Description:

    PAT

    Original Title

    4. Aguila vs CA_DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner is the manager of a partnership engaged in lending activities. The private respondent and her late husband owned a house and lot, and entered into an agreement with the petitioner's partnership to sell the property for 200,000 pesos with an option to repurchase it within 90 days for 230,000 pesos. The private respondent failed to repurchase the property. The petitioner contends that he is not the real party in interest, but rather it is the partnership. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Code, a partnership has a separate legal personality from its partners, and the real party in interest is the partnership since the property is registered under its name.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    793 views1 page

    Aguila Vs CA - DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    I took her to my penthouse and i freaked it
    The petitioner is the manager of a partnership engaged in lending activities. The private respondent and her late husband owned a house and lot, and entered into an agreement with the petitioner's partnership to sell the property for 200,000 pesos with an option to repurchase it within 90 days for 230,000 pesos. The private respondent failed to repurchase the property. The petitioner contends that he is not the real party in interest, but rather it is the partnership. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Code, a partnership has a separate legal personality from its partners, and the real party in interest is the partnership since the property is registered under its name.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    AGUILA vs. CA and FELICIDAD VDA.

    DE ABROGAR

    - Petitioner in this case is the manager of A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., a partnership engaged in lending
    activities.
    - Private respondent and her late husband, Ruben M. Abrogar, were the registered owners of a house and
    lot. They entered into a memorandum agreement w/c provided, among others that:
    o Aguila & Sons shall buy their property and a Deed of Absolute Sale shall be executed for 200,000
    o The couple have the option to repurchase the said property within 90d from execution of the
    MOA for the amount of 230,000.
    - A deed of absolute sale was subsequently executed and thru a SPA, authorized petitioner to cause the
    cancellation of TCT of their house n lot and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of A.C.
    Aguila and Sons, Co., in the event she failed to redeem the subject property.
    - She failed to redeem the property.
    - Private respondent then received a letter from the counsel of Aguila & Sons demanding that she vacate
    the premises within 15 days after receipt of the letter and surrender its possession peacefully to A.C.
    Aguila & Sons, Co. but she refused.
    - An ejectment case was filed against her and the MTC ruled in favor of Aguila & Sons.
    - She also filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of the deed of sale w/ the RTC alleging that the
    signature of her husband in the deed was forged because he was already dead when the deed was
    supposed to have been executed on June 11, 1991 --- but it was dismissed.
    - On appeal, CA reversed the decision and held that the transaction the parties actually entered into is an
    equitable mortgage, not a sale with right to repurchase; being a mortgage, the transaction entered into by
    the parties is in the nature of a pactum commissorium which is clearly prohibited by Article 2088 of the
    New Civil Code. Hence, the deed of sale should be declared void.
    - Before the SC, petitioner contends that he is not the real party in interest but A.C. Aguila & Co.

    ISSUE:

    W/N the partnership is the real party in interest?

    YES. Under Art. 1768 of the Civil Code, a partnership has a juridical personality separate and distinct from that of
    each of the partners. The partners cannot be held liable for the obligations of the partnership unless it is shown
    that the legal fiction of a different juridical personality is being used for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal purposes.

    In this case, private respondent has not shown that A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., as a separate juridical entity, is being
    used for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal purposes. Moreover, the title to the subject property is in the name of A.C.
    Aguila & Sons, Co. and the Memorandum of Agreement was executed between private respondent, with the
    consent of her late husband, and A. C. Aguila & Sons, Co., represented by petitioner. Hence, it is the partnership,
    not its officers or agents, which should be impleaded in any litigation involving property registered in its name. A
    violation of this rule will result in the dismissal of the complaint.

    A real party in interest is one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or who is entitled to the
    avails of the suit. Any decision rendered against a person who is not a real party in interest in the case cannot be
    executed. Hence, a complaint filed against such a person should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of
    action.

    You might also like