Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    Ramnani vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jpm Jpm
    1) Ishwar Ramnani appointed his brothers Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact to manage his business interests in the Philippines through a power of attorney. 2) Choithram purchased two parcels of land and constructed buildings on the land using funds from Ishwar and loans. 3) Ishwar revoked the power of attorney after Choithram failed to provide an accounting of income and expenses for the properties from 1967-1970. 4) Despite the revocation, Choithram transferred the rights to the properties to his daughter-in-law. Ishwar sued to recover the properties.

    Copyright:

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

    Ramnani vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jpm Jpm
    102 views2 pages
    1) Ishwar Ramnani appointed his brothers Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact to manage his business interests in the Philippines through a power of attorney. 2) Choithram purchased two parcels of land and constructed buildings on the land using funds from Ishwar and loans. 3) Ishwar revoked the power of attorney after Choithram failed to provide an accounting of income and expenses for the properties from 1967-1970. 4) Despite the revocation, Choithram transferred the rights to the properties to his daughter-in-law. Ishwar sued to recover the properties.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Ishwar Ramnani appointed his brothers Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact to manage his business interests in the Philippines through a power of attorney. 2) Choithram purchased two parcels of land and constructed buildings on the land using funds from Ishwar and loans. 3) Ishwar revoked the power of attorney after Choithram failed to provide an accounting of income and expenses for the properties from 1967-1970. 4) Despite the revocation, Choithram transferred the rights to the properties to his daughter-in-law. Ishwar sued to recover the properties.

    Copyright:

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

    Ramnani vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jpm Jpm
    1) Ishwar Ramnani appointed his brothers Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact to manage his business interests in the Philippines through a power of attorney. 2) Choithram purchased two parcels of land and constructed buildings on the land using funds from Ishwar and loans. 3) Ishwar revoked the power of attorney after Choithram failed to provide an accounting of income and expenses for the properties from 1967-1970. 4) Despite the revocation, Choithram transferred the rights to the properties to his daughter-in-law. Ishwar sued to recover the properties.

    Copyright:

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

    RAMNANI v.

    CA
    RAMNANI v. CA
    196 scra 731; May 7, 1991
    Ponente: J. Gancayco

    FACTS:
             
    Ishwar, Choithram and Navalrai, all surnamed Jethmal Ramnani, are brothers of
    the full blood. Ishwar and his spouse Sonya had their main business based in New York.
    Realizing the difficulty of managing their investments in the Philippines they executed a
    general power of attorney on January 24, 1966 appointing Navalrai and Choithram as
    attorneys-in-fact, empowering them to manage and conduct their business concern in
    the Philippines

    On February 1, 1966 and on May 16, 1966, Choithram entered into two
    agreements for the purchase of two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong, Pasig,
    Rizal, from Ortigas & Company, Ltd. Partnership. A building was constructed thereon by
    Choithram in 1966. Three other buildings were built thereon by Choithram through a
    loan of P100,000.00 obtained from the Merchants Bank as well as the income derived
    from the first building.

    Sometime in 1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and
    expenses relative to these properties during the period 1967 to 1970. Choithram failed
    and refused to render such accounting. Thereafter, Ishwar revoked the general power
    of attorney. Choithram and Ortigas were duly notified of such revocation on April 1,
    1971 and May 24, 1971, respectively. Said notice was also registered with the Securities
    and Exchange Commission on March 29, 1971 and was published in the April 2, 1971
    issue of The Manila Times for the information of the general public. 

    Nevertheless, Choithram, transferred all rights and interests of Ishwar and Sonya
    in favor of his daughter-in-law, Nirmla Ramnani, on February 19, 1973.

    On October 6, 1982, Ishwar and Sonya filed a complaint against Choitram and/or
    spouses Nirmla and Moti and Ortigas for reconveyance of said properties or payment of
    its value and damages.

    ISSUE:
             
              Whether Ishram can recover the entire properties subject in the ligitation

    HELD:
             
              No, Ishram cannot recover the entire properties subject.

              The Supreme Court held that despite the fact that Choithram, et al., have
    committed acts which demonstrate their bad faith and scheme to defraud spouses
    Ishwar and Sonya of their rightful share in the properties in litigation, the Court cannot
    ignore the fact that Choithram must have been motivated by a strong conviction that as
    the industrial partner in the acquisition of said assets he has as much claim to said
    properties as Ishwar, the capitalist partner in the joint venture.
             
    Choithram in turn decided to invest in the real estate business. He bought the
    two (2) parcels of land in question from Ortigas as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. Instead
    of paying for the lots in cash, he paid in installments and used the balance of the capital
    entrusted to him, plus a loan, to build two buildings. Although the buildings were
    burned later, Choithram was able to build two other buildings on the property. He
    rented them out and collected the rentals. Through the industry and genius of
    Choithram, Ishwar's property was developed and improved into what it is now.
        
             Justice and equity dictate that the two share equally the fruit of their joint
    investment and efforts. Perhaps this Solomonic solution may pave the way towards
    their reconciliation. Both would stand to gain. No one would end up the loser. After all,
    blood is thicker than water.

    You might also like