Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    26 Valera Vs Velasco - Ramirez, Mel

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    Valera appointed Velasco as his attorney-in-fact to manage his property. After administration, Valera owed Velasco PHP 1,100. They had a dispute and Velasco sued Valera. Judgment was in Velasco's favor and Valera's right to usufruct was sold. Later, Valera sold his right of redemption to Salvador Vallejo, who then transferred it to Velasco. The court ruled that Velasco suing Valera was equivalent to expressly renouncing the agency and terminating their relationship. It also ruled that Velasco's subsequent purchase of the right of usufruct at auction was valid since he was no longer Valera's agent.

    Copyright:

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

    26 Valera Vs Velasco - Ramirez, Mel

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    29 views2 pages
    Valera appointed Velasco as his attorney-in-fact to manage his property. After administration, Valera owed Velasco PHP 1,100. They had a dispute and Velasco sued Valera. Judgment was in Velasco's favor and Valera's right to usufruct was sold. Later, Valera sold his right of redemption to Salvador Vallejo, who then transferred it to Velasco. The court ruled that Velasco suing Valera was equivalent to expressly renouncing the agency and terminating their relationship. It also ruled that Velasco's subsequent purchase of the right of usufruct at auction was valid since he was no longer Valera's agent.

    Original Title

    26 Valera vs Velasco - Ramirez, Mel

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Valera appointed Velasco as his attorney-in-fact to manage his property. After administration, Valera owed Velasco PHP 1,100. They had a dispute and Velasco sued Valera. Judgment was in Velasco's favor and Valera's right to usufruct was sold. Later, Valera sold his right of redemption to Salvador Vallejo, who then transferred it to Velasco. The court ruled that Velasco suing Valera was equivalent to expressly renouncing the agency and terminating their relationship. It also ruled that Velasco's subsequent purchase of the right of usufruct at auction was valid since he was no longer Valera's agent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views2 pages

    26 Valera Vs Velasco - Ramirez, Mel

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    Valera appointed Velasco as his attorney-in-fact to manage his property. After administration, Valera owed Velasco PHP 1,100. They had a dispute and Velasco sued Valera. Judgment was in Velasco's favor and Valera's right to usufruct was sold. Later, Valera sold his right of redemption to Salvador Vallejo, who then transferred it to Velasco. The court ruled that Velasco suing Valera was equivalent to expressly renouncing the agency and terminating their relationship. It also ruled that Velasco's subsequent purchase of the right of usufruct at auction was valid since he was no longer Valera's agent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    [Valera vs Velasco]

    [G.R. No. L-28050, march 13, 1928]


    [Justice Villa-Real]
    Digested by [Ramirez, Mel Michelle Dawn T.]

    FACTS: Petitioner Valera, appointed defendant, Velasco, as an attorney-in-fact of plaintiff to


    manage his property, consisting of the usufruct of a real property. After the defendant’s
    administration, the plaintiff’s accounts were then liquidated and showed that the plaintiff owed
    the defendant Php1,100. The parties had a misunderstanding which led the defendant to bring
    suit against the plaintiff. Judgment was in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff’s right to
    usufruct was sold and proceeds were paid to the defendant. Later on, the plaintiff sold his right of
    redemption to one Salvador Vallejo (hereafter Vallejo), who the former lost against in a separate
    civil case. Vallejo then transferred the right of redemption to the defendant, so the latter had the
    title to the right of usufruct to the property.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant’s claim against the plaintiff is an equivalent to an express
    renunciation of agency

    RULING: Yes. The disagreements between an agent and his principal with respect to the
    agency, and the filing of a civil action by the former against the latter for the collection of the
    balance in favor of the agent are facts showing a rupture of relations, and the complaint is
    equivalent to an express renunciation of the agency, and is more expressive than if the agent had
    merely said, “I renounce the agency.”

    ISSUE #2: Whether or not the defendant’s purchase of the plaintiff’s right of usufruct was valid
    and legal.

    RULING:
    Yes, since the defendant ceased ipso facto to be an agent by virtue of his suing Valera

    PRINCIPLE/S:
    - The filing of a complaint by an agent against his principal for the collection of a balance is
    equivalent to an express renunciation of the agency and terminate the juridical relation
    between them.
    - The purchase at public auction by the agent after having renounced and thus terminated the
    agency, of the property involved in the agency sold at said auction for the purpose of
    satisfying a judgment rendered against the principal in favor of the agent, is valid.

    CIVIL CODE PROVISION/S:


    Article 1732, Civil Code
    Agency is terminated:
    1. By revocation;
    2. By the withdrawal of the agent;
    3. By the death, interdiction, bankruptcy, or insolvency of the principal or of the agent.
    Article 1736, Civil Code
    An agent may withdraw from the agency by giving notice to the principal. Should the latter
    suffer any damage through the withdrawal, the agent must indemnify him therefore, unless the
    agent’s reason for his withdrawal should be the impossibility of continuing to act as such without
    serious detriment to himself.

    You might also like