case digest | Lease | Deed

AMIGO VS. TEVES G.R. No.

L-6389

November 29, 1954

FACTS On August 11, 1937, Macario Amigo and Anacleto Cagalitan executed in favor of their son, Marcelino Amigo, a power of attorney granting to the latter, among others, the power "to lease, let, bargain, transfer, convey and sell, remise, release, mortgage and hypothecate, part or any of the properties . . . upon such terms and conditions, and under such covenants as he shall think fit." On October 30, 1938, Marcelino Amigo, in his capacity as attorney-in-fact, executed a deed of sale of a parcel of land for a price of P3,000 in favor of Serafin Teves stipulating therein that the vendors could repurchase the land within a period of 18 months from the date of the sale. In the same document, it was also stipulated that vendors would remain in possession of the land as lessees for a period of 18 months subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) the lessees shall pay P180 as rent every six months from the date of the agreement; (b) the period of the lease shall terminate on April 30, 1940; (c) in case of litigation, the lessees shall pay P100 as attorney's fees; and (d) in case of failure to pay any rental as agreed upon, the lease shall automatically terminate and the right of ownership of vendee shall become absolute. On July 20, 1939, the spouses Macario Amigo and Anacleta Cagalitan donated to their sons Justino Amigo and Pastor Amigo several parcels of land including their right to repurchase the land in litigation. The deed of donation was made in a public instrument, was duly accepted by the donees, and was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds. The vendors-lessees paid the rental corresponding to the first six months, but not the rental for the subsequent semester, and so on January 8, 1940, Serafin Teves, the vendee-lessor, executed an "Affidavit of Consolidation of Title" in view of the failure of the lessees to pay the rentals as agreed upon, and registered said affidavit in the Office of the Register of Deeds who issued to Serafin Teves the corresponding transfer of title over the land in question. On March 9, 1940, Justino Amigo and Pastor Amigo, as donees of the right to repurchase the land in question, offered to repurchase the land from Serafin Teves by tendering to him the payment of the redemption price but the latter refused on the ground that the ownership had already been consolidated in him as purchaser a retro. ISSUES Whether or not the lease covenant contained in the deed of sale with pacto de retroexecuted by Marcelino Amigo as attorney-in-fact in favor of Serafin Teves is not germane to, nor within the purview of, the powers granted to said attorney-in-fact and, therefore, is ultra vires and null and void

or can sell the land under any term or condition and covenant he may think fit. release." or "to lease. hereditaments. and accept the seizing and possessing of all lands. contract. The lease covenant embodied in the deed of sale is common in contracts involving sales of land with pacto de retro. Where the vendor a retro continues to occupy the land as lessee. The fact that the agent has acted in accordance with the wish of his principals can be inferred from their attitude in donating to the herein petitioners the right to redeem the land under the terms and conditions appearing in the deed of sale executed by their agent. purchase. the powers granted to said attorney-in-fact and. bargain. mortgage and hypothecate . tenements. upon such terms and conditions. It can be said that the covenant regarding the lease of the land sold is germane to the contract of sale with pacto de retro. and under such covenants as he shall think fit." When the power of attorney says that the agent can enter into any contract concerning the land. convey and sell. therefore. nor within the purview of. and keep lands. . The lease that a vendor executes on the property may be considered as a means of delivery or tradition by constitutum possessorium. remise. RATIO The power granted to the agent is so broad that it practically covers the celebration of any contract and the conclusion of any covenant or stipulation. means that he can act in the same manner and with the same breath and latitude as the principal could concerning the property. . . let. is not ultra vires and is valid. Among the powers granted are: to bargain. by fiction of law.DECISION No. agree for. transfer. receive. the possession is deemed to be constituted in the vendee by virtue of this mode of tradition. The lease covenant contained in the deed of sale with pacto de retroexecuted by Marcelino Amigo as attorney-in-fact in favor of Serafin Teves is not germane to.

Roberto and the other children filed a complaint against Jose Escay. 1934. Sr. This was approved by the probate court taking cognizance of the estate of the deceased Emilio Escay in its order of February 24. Magdalena Vda. Sr. in consideration of his assumption of the mortgage indebtedness of Emilio.ESCAY VS COURT OF APPEALS G. Atty. under which Jose assumed the mortgage indebtedness of his deceased brother Emilio. Arboleda for the recovery of the ownership and possession of the properties in question. In 1941. Atty. and Jose Escay. As the Court of Appeals observed. Sr. 1974 FACTS Emilio and Jose Escay. As the Court of Appeals found. The contract and the "contrato suplementario" were both prepared for execution by the Judicial Administrator and by the lawyer of the bank. In his lifetime. Arboleda and Jose Escay.. Recto or the Philippine National Bank contrived and confederated with the Judicial Administrator . were brothers. He died in 1924 before he could pay his obligation with the bank which had mounted. the administrator. in these negotiations. de Escay. RATIO The evidence is clear that the original and supplementary contracts were the result of a series of negotiations by the testate estate of Emilio Escay through its Judicial Administrator and legal representative. did not appear to have been represented by counsel. Emilio mortgaged his properties now in question. a contract was entered among the Philippine National Bank. Atty. de Escay. to the Philippine National Bank. Sr. a supplementary contract was entered into among the Philippine National Bank. the heirs represented by their guardian ad litem. This was agreed to by Magdalena Vda. The bank then filed in 1930 a foreclosure suit against the estate of Emilio represented by the administrator. the Philippine National Bank. in the series of conferences. there is no evidence whatsoever that Atty. Jose Escay. RULING No. Sr. its creditor. now both deceased. No. Sr. Sr. de Escay. Arboleda.R.. and Atty. L-37504 December 18. Recto. A trust relation did not arise between the testate estate of Emilio Escay and under Jose Escay. Jose Escay. Magdalena Vda. in her own behalf and as guardian ad litem of their children. Sr. Pending the said suit. Eduardo Arboleda. and Atty. ISSUES Whether or not a trust relation arose between the testate estate of Emilio Escay and under Jose Escay. widow of Emilio. When it was discovered that the original contract failed to state the transfer of the ownership of the properties in question to Jose Escay.

Magdalena Vda. de Escay.of the testate estate or the heirs through their guardian ad litem. Since there was no fraud. there was no trust relation that arose. .

that it was their (Eduardo's and Clotilde's) wish and desire. should his brothers and sister fail to do just that.” Such being the case.” Said complaint also provides “pursuant to such wish and desire and arrangements. that Hdas. the value of the two haciendas above-mentioned being P150. Cruz and Pusod among his brothers and sister and his wife Clotilde. should be divided between the brothers and sister of Eduardo Cuaycong. No. .000. Justo Cuaycong. all surnamed Cuaycong. with the knowledge and consent of his wife. Eduardo told Justo and Luis. made known to his brothers and sisters that he and his wife Clotilde de Leon (died in 1940) had an understanding and made arrangements with Luis Cuaycong and his father Justo Cuaycong.000." and "Pusod" above-referred to.R. RATIO The intention of the trustor may be seen in the complaint that “on several occasions during the later years of Eduardo and Lino Cuaycong. or. Meliton. Cuaycong and his father.00. Clotilde de Leon. Lino and Basilisa. it is clear that the trustor expressly told the defendants of his intention to establish the trust. Luis and Benjamin Cuaycong for conveyance of inheritance and accounting alleging that Eduardo Cuaycong had on several occasions. 1967 FACTS The surviving children and grandchildren of Lino Cuaycong. namely. the said Eduardo Cuaycong. that he and his wife. Justo.00. and the two agreed. at all events. they should divide only the one-half (1/2) portions proindiviso thereof appertaining to him (Eduardo) in the conjugal properties. who died in 1941. the former made known to the latter and to their brothers and sister. "Sta.CUAYCONG VS CUAYCONG G. and as an agreement with the latter to effectuate their wish and desire had directed his brothers and sister to pay his wife the sum of P75. And as far back as 1936 Lino demanded from Justo and Luis his share and especially after Eduardo's and Clotilde's death. the plaintiffs demanded their shares. An express trust was made over the properties in question. to hold in trust what might belong to his brothers and sister as a result of the arrangements and deliver to them their share when the proper time comes. ISSUES Whether or not an express trust was made over the properties in question RULING Yes. Clotilde de Leon. brother of deceased Eduardo Cuaycong filed a suit against Justo. and then divide the same among themselves share and share alike. Cruz. L-21616 December 11. that it was their desire to divide Haciendas Sta. As the two haciendas were the subject of transactions between the spouses and Justo and Luis Cuaycong. had an understanding and made arrangements with defendant Luis D. and his wife. Clotilde de Leon.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.