Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    Rafferty vs. Province of Cebu - CD

    Uploaded by

    menforever
    James Rafferty sued the Municipality and Province of Cebu regarding two plots of land that were expropriated for a provincial park. Rafferty had executed a document making his agent Michael empowered to convey the land for P226. The record shows Michael was paid and Rafferty accepted the money. Relying on this, the defendants took possession of the land, made improvements, and claimed ownership without challenge for 15 years. The court ruled that after such a long time, Rafferty was bound by the acts of his agent and could not claim the transaction was fraudulent.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rafferty vs. Province of Cebu - CD

    Uploaded by

    menforever
    46 views1 page
    James Rafferty sued the Municipality and Province of Cebu regarding two plots of land that were expropriated for a provincial park. Rafferty had executed a document making his agent Michael empowered to convey the land for P226. The record shows Michael was paid and Rafferty accepted the money. Relying on this, the defendants took possession of the land, made improvements, and claimed ownership without challenge for 15 years. The court ruled that after such a long time, Rafferty was bound by the acts of his agent and could not claim the transaction was fraudulent.

    Original Title

    19. Rafferty vs. Province of Cebu - CD.docx

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    James Rafferty sued the Municipality and Province of Cebu regarding two plots of land that were expropriated for a provincial park. Rafferty had executed a document making his agent Michael empowered to convey the land for P226. The record shows Michael was paid and Rafferty accepted the money. Relying on this, the defendants took possession of the land, made improvements, and claimed ownership without challenge for 15 years. The court ruled that after such a long time, Rafferty was bound by the acts of his agent and could not claim the transaction was fraudulent.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views1 page

    Rafferty vs. Province of Cebu - CD

    Uploaded by

    menforever
    James Rafferty sued the Municipality and Province of Cebu regarding two plots of land that were expropriated for a provincial park. Rafferty had executed a document making his agent Michael empowered to convey the land for P226. The record shows Michael was paid and Rafferty accepted the money. Relying on this, the defendants took possession of the land, made improvements, and claimed ownership without challenge for 15 years. The court ruled that after such a long time, Rafferty was bound by the acts of his agent and could not claim the transaction was fraudulent.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JAMES J.

    RAFFERTY versus - MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU and PROVINCE OF CEBU FACTS: An instrument was executed by Rafferty making Michael, as his agent and attorney-in-fact, in and by which, for a consideration of P226, Michael undertook to convey all of the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in two which were expropriated within the provincial park. The record is conclusive that the P226 was paid to the plaintiff at the time of this alleged conveyance, and that he received and accepted the money and that the defendant relying thereon entered in, and upon, and took possession of, the land in question, and made permanent improvements thereon, and claimed to be its owner, and that in truth and in fact, the plaintiff never questioned the right or title of the defendant until these actions were brought on. 'December 5, 1925. Plaintiff now contends, that Michael had no authority to execute the instrument in question, Whether or not Rafferty is bound by the acts of his agent. Plaintiff having receipted for and accepted the consideration for the instrument executed and the defendant having relied thereon and having entered upon and taken possession and made valuable improvements on the land, we are clearly of the opinion that he cannot, fifteen, years later, maintain an action to set aside that instrument upon the ground of fraud and deceit in its execution. After a lapse of fifteen years, Rafferty is bound by the acts of his agents and is stopped to question the legality of the transactions upon the ground of fraud.

    You might also like