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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 165 views

    Art. 16, Sec. 3 SANTOS Vs SANTOS

    Uploaded by

    Zandra Andrea Glacita
    Teodora Santos and two nieces owned an undivided share of a parcel of land, while Leoncio owned the majority share. Leoncio collected rent from the US Army for use of the land but refused to provide an accounting of the funds or agree to partition the land. He then sold the land to the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration without the consent of the other owners. The court ruled that the Civil Aeronautics Administration could be sued, as when the state enters into a contract it implicitly consents to legal action for breach of contract, even without explicit consent. The Administration stood in the place of the defunct corporation and assumed its contractual obligations.

    Copyright:

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

    Art. 16, Sec. 3 SANTOS Vs SANTOS

    Uploaded by

    Zandra Andrea Glacita
    165 views1 page
    Teodora Santos and two nieces owned an undivided share of a parcel of land, while Leoncio owned the majority share. Leoncio collected rent from the US Army for use of the land but refused to provide an accounting of the funds or agree to partition the land. He then sold the land to the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration without the consent of the other owners. The court ruled that the Civil Aeronautics Administration could be sued, as when the state enters into a contract it implicitly consents to legal action for breach of contract, even without explicit consent. The Administration stood in the place of the defunct corporation and assumed its contractual obligations.

    Original Title

    80. Art. 16, Sec. 3 SANTOS vs SANTOS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Teodora Santos and two nieces owned an undivided share of a parcel of land, while Leoncio owned the majority share. Leoncio collected rent from the US Army for use of the land but refused to provide an accounting of the funds or agree to partition the land. He then sold the land to the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration without the consent of the other owners. The court ruled that the Civil Aeronautics Administration could be sued, as when the state enters into a contract it implicitly consents to legal action for breach of contract, even without explicit consent. The Administration stood in the place of the defunct corporation and assumed its contractual obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    165 views1 page

    Art. 16, Sec. 3 SANTOS Vs SANTOS

    Uploaded by

    Zandra Andrea Glacita
    Teodora Santos and two nieces owned an undivided share of a parcel of land, while Leoncio owned the majority share. Leoncio collected rent from the US Army for use of the land but refused to provide an accounting of the funds or agree to partition the land. He then sold the land to the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration without the consent of the other owners. The court ruled that the Civil Aeronautics Administration could be sued, as when the state enters into a contract it implicitly consents to legal action for breach of contract, even without explicit consent. The Administration stood in the place of the defunct corporation and assumed its contractual obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Teodora Santos vs.

    Leoncio Santos
    92 Phil., 281, No. L-4699
    November 26, 1952

    FACTS: An undivided parcel of land was owned by the petitioners and the respondent in the
    proportion of 1/7 undivided share for Teodora and 1/14 undivided share each for Josefina and
    Emiliana Santos (nieces of Teodora) and 5/7 undivided share for Leoncio. Leoncio collected
    from the Army of the United States of America rentals for the use and occupation of said parcel
    of land.
    They made a demand upon Leoncio for the accounting of which and payment of their respective
    shares therein but the latter failed and refused to do so. They also complain that they made a
    demand upon Leoncio to have the lot partitioned among them but the latter again refused.
    Instead, he sold the lot to the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration.
    Upon these allegations they pray that Leoncio be ordered to render an accounting of the rentals
    and to pay and deliver their shares in the land; that the parcel of land be partitioned among them
    in the proportion above stated; that the purported sale by Leoncio to the National Airports
    Corporation (the predecessor of the Civil Aeronautics Administration) insofar as their shares are
    concerned be declared null and void; that the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics
    Administration be directed to vacate the portions of the lot belonging to them, to pay them a
    reasonable rental until after possession of their shares in the lot shall have been restored to them
    and to pay damages and costs.
    The Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration moved to dismiss the complaint for
    lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of the complaint against him, and invoking immunity from
    suit.
    ISSUE: W/N the Civil Aeronautics Administration can be sued
    RULING: YES. The Civil Aeronautics Administration, even if it is not a juridical entity, cannot
    legally prevent a party or parties from enforcing their proprietary rights for lack of juridical
    personality, because it took over all the powers and assumed all the obligations of the defunct
    corporation which had entered into the contract in question.
    Where the state or its government enters into a contract, through its officers or agents, in
    furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority,
    whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom, and if
    the law granting the authority to enter into such contract does not provide for or name the officer
    against whom such action may be brought in the event of a breach thereof the state itself may be
    sued even without its consent, because by entering into a contract the sovereign state has
    descended to the level of the citizen and its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of
    entering into such contract.

    You might also like