Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1919-1932 | 2D 2012
1.
2.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the Management Administration
contract between the municipality and Lacuesta was
valid
(2) Whether or not the Management-Administration
contract still stands even if Lacuesta already died
HELD:
(1) NO. The Management-Administration contract
entered into by Lacuesta and the municipalty was void as
it lacked a vital procedural aspect (public bidding)
necessary for the validity of the contract. Moreover, the
Supreme Court held that the municipality had no power
to grant exclusive privileges of fishing for more than 5
years.
(2) NO. Essentially, the contract of management and
administration between the Municipality and Lacuesta is
one of agency whereby a person binds himself to render
some service or to do something in representation or on
behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the
latter. Lacuesta bound himself as Manager-Administrator
of the Bayambang Fishing and Hunting Park and Municipal
Watershed to render service or perform duties and
responsibilities in representation or on behalf of the
Municipality of Bayambang, with the consent or authority
of the latter. Under Art. 1919 of the Civil Code, agency is
extinguished by the death of the agent. His rights and
obligations arising from the contract are not
transmittable to his heirs or predecessors-in-interest.
3.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Was Atty Lavina/Muyots agency extinguished upon the
death of Carmen? (Was Muyot capacitated to receive
summons for Carmens estate/ Was Lavina capacitated to
represent Carmen as her Atty?)
HELD: Yes. Estate of a dead person may only be
summoned through the executor or administrator in this
case, De Garcia.
The estate of a dead person may only be summoned
through the executor or administrator of his estate for it
is the executor or administrator who may sue or be sued
(Sec. 3, Rule 3, Rules of Court) and who may bring or
defend actions for the recovery or protection of the
property or rights of the deceased (Sec. 2, Rule 87, Rules
of Court).
4.
5.
6.
7.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
1) W/n the power-of-attorney to the wife Josefa
revoked the one to the son Angel
2) W/n power-of-attorney authorized the sale by
Angel of the half interest in the boat to Juan
HELD:
1) NO. Angel was acting under a valid power-ofattorney.
8.
9.
On 9 June 1947, Primitivo, acting as attorney-infact of Tiburcio, sold the parcel of land to his
son Teodorico Abad for P1 and the payment of
Tiburcios mortgage debt.
Children and heirs of Tiburcio brought a suit to
recover possession and ownership of land.
ISSUES:
3) W/N the power-of-attorney was coupled with an
interest? No.
4) W/N the sale of Primitivo to Teodrico was null
and void? Yes.
HELD:
1) NO. Since it is not an agency coupled with an
interest, agency is terminated upon death of principal
Tiburcio.