Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Art. 1768 6. Aguila Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    nanierdes
    This case involved a property sale between Alfredo Aguila Jr. (petitioner) and Felicidad Abrogar (private respondent). Abrogar failed to redeem the property within 90 days as agreed. When Abrogar refused to vacate, Aguila's company A.C. Aguila & Sons filed an ejectment case. The Supreme Court ruled that Aguila was not the real party in interest since the property was registered to the company. As a separate juridical entity, the company rather than its agents should be party to any litigation over property registered in its name. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed and the complaint against Aguila was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Art. 1768 6. Aguila Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    nanierdes
    30 views2 pages
    This case involved a property sale between Alfredo Aguila Jr. (petitioner) and Felicidad Abrogar (private respondent). Abrogar failed to redeem the property within 90 days as agreed. When Abrogar refused to vacate, Aguila's company A.C. Aguila & Sons filed an ejectment case. The Supreme Court ruled that Aguila was not the real party in interest since the property was registered to the company. As a separate juridical entity, the company rather than its agents should be party to any litigation over property registered in its name. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed and the complaint against Aguila was dismissed.

    Original Title

    Art. 1768 6. Aguila vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a property sale between Alfredo Aguila Jr. (petitioner) and Felicidad Abrogar (private respondent). Abrogar failed to redeem the property within 90 days as agreed. When Abrogar refused to vacate, Aguila's company A.C. Aguila & Sons filed an ejectment case. The Supreme Court ruled that Aguila was not the real party in interest since the property was registered to the company. As a separate juridical entity, the company rather than its agents should be party to any litigation over property registered in its name. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed and the complaint against Aguila was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Art. 1768 6. Aguila Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    nanierdes
    This case involved a property sale between Alfredo Aguila Jr. (petitioner) and Felicidad Abrogar (private respondent). Abrogar failed to redeem the property within 90 days as agreed. When Abrogar refused to vacate, Aguila's company A.C. Aguila & Sons filed an ejectment case. The Supreme Court ruled that Aguila was not the real party in interest since the property was registered to the company. As a separate juridical entity, the company rather than its agents should be party to any litigation over property registered in its name. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed and the complaint against Aguila was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    USA College of Law

    OHAO – 3D

    ALFREDO N. AGUILA, JR. , v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and FELICIDAD S. VDA. DE


    Case Name ABROGAR

    Topic
    Case No. | Date G.R. No. 127347. November 25, 1999
    Ponente Justice MENDOZA
    Doctrine

    RELEVANT FACTS

     Petitioner Alfredo N. Aguila, Jr., is the manager of A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., a partnership engaged in lending
    activities. Private respondent Felicidad Abrogar and her late husband, Ruben M. Abrogar, were the
    registered owners of a house and lot, in Marikina
     On April 18, 1991, Private respondent, with the consent of her late husband, sold the subject property to
    A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co.,
     In a SPA dated the same day, private respondent authorized petitioner to cause the cancellation of TCT 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 as provided in the Memorandum of Agreement.
     Private respondent failed to redeem the property within the 90-day period as provided in the Memorandum
    of Agreement.
     Private respondent then received a letter from the lawyer of A.C. Aguila and Sons, Co., 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.
     Upon the refusal of private respondent to vacate the subject premises, A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co. filed an
    ejectment case against her in MTC Marikina, MTC ruled in favor of the Aguila.
     Private respondent appealed first to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 163, Pasig, Metro Manila, then to the
    Court of Appeals, and later to the SC, but she lost in all the cases.
     Private respondent then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of a deed of sale with the RTC claiming that
    her husband signature was forged.

    ISSUE: W/N Petitioner is not the real party in interest but A.C. Aguila & Co., against which this case should have
    been brought
    RULING:

    YES. The SC concluded that the petitioner is not the real party in interest against whom this action should be
    prosecuted makes it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised by him in this appeal.

    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.
    USA College of Law

    OHAO – 3D

    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.

    RULING
    Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and the complaint against petitioner is DISMISSED

    SEPARATE OPINIONS
    (optional)

    NOTES
    (optional)

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy