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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    Diolosa Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    jovelyn davo
    1) Mariano Diolosa sued the defendants over unpaid commissions from lots in the Villa Alegre Subdivision that were not sold under their agency agreement. 2) The trial court dismissed the case but the court of appeals ruled in favor of Diolosa, finding that the agency agreement stipulated that Diolosa had authority to sell all lots until they were fully disposed of. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed and dismissed the petition, holding that absent any valid grounds, the agency agreement could not be rescinded by the defendants without paying damages to Diolosa for breach of contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Diolosa Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    jovelyn davo
    75 views1 page
    1) Mariano Diolosa sued the defendants over unpaid commissions from lots in the Villa Alegre Subdivision that were not sold under their agency agreement. 2) The trial court dismissed the case but the court of appeals ruled in favor of Diolosa, finding that the agency agreement stipulated that Diolosa had authority to sell all lots until they were fully disposed of. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed and dismissed the petition, holding that absent any valid grounds, the agency agreement could not be rescinded by the defendants without paying damages to Diolosa for breach of contract.

    Original Title

    2.-Diolosa-vs-CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Mariano Diolosa sued the defendants over unpaid commissions from lots in the Villa Alegre Subdivision that were not sold under their agency agreement. 2) The trial court dismissed the case but the court of appeals ruled in favor of Diolosa, finding that the agency agreement stipulated that Diolosa had authority to sell all lots until they were fully disposed of. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed and dismissed the petition, holding that absent any valid grounds, the agency agreement could not be rescinded by the defendants without paying damages to Diolosa for breach of contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Diolosa Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    jovelyn davo
    1) Mariano Diolosa sued the defendants over unpaid commissions from lots in the Villa Alegre Subdivision that were not sold under their agency agreement. 2) The trial court dismissed the case but the court of appeals ruled in favor of Diolosa, finding that the agency agreement stipulated that Diolosa had authority to sell all lots until they were fully disposed of. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed and dismissed the petition, holding that absent any valid grounds, the agency agreement could not be rescinded by the defendants without paying damages to Diolosa for breach of contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    by rpl

    MARIANO DIOLOSA v. CA, GR No. L-36585, 1984-07-16 (/juris/view/ce915?


    user=gbThwSzV0eVROaFM5ZUFOMUptY29odkxudXdtMmEwcDZHVTk3bXlWODREcz0=)

    Facts:

    case originated in the then Court of First Instance of Iloilo where private respondent instituted a case of recovery of unpaid commission against
    petitioners over some of the lots subject of an agency agreement that were not sold.

    was dismissed by the trial court... private respondent elevated the case to respondent court whose decision is the subject of the present petition.

    plaintiff was and still is a licensed real estate broker, and as such licensed real estate broker on June 20, 1968, an agreement was entered into
    between him... and the defendants spouses... former was constituted as exclusive sales agent of the defendants, its successors, heirs and assigns,
    to dispose of, sell, cede, transfer and convey the lots included in VILLA ALEGRE SUBDIVISION... defendants terminated the services of plaintiff as
    their exclusive sales agent per letter... as a real estate broker, he had sold the lots comprised in several subdivisions, to wit: Greenfield
    Subdivision, the Villa Beach Subdivision, the Juntado Subdivision, the St. Joseph Village, the Ledesma Subdivision, the Brookside Subdivision, the
    Villa

    Alegre Subdivision, and Cecilia Subdivision, all in the City of Iloilo except St. Joseph which is in Pavia... plaintiff, as a licensed real estate broker,
    has been seriously damaged by the action of the defendants in rescinding, by Exhibit "B"; the contract... plaintiff is entitled to a commission on the
    lots unsold because of the rescission of the contract.

    plaintiff contends

    That under the terms of the contract (Exhibit "A") the plaintiff had unrevocable authority to sell all the lots included in the Villa Alegre Subdivision
    and to act as exclusive sales agent of the defendants until all the lots shall have been disposed of.

    rescission of the contract under Exhibit "B", contravenes the agreement of the parties,... Pendants contend:

    (a) That they were within their legal right to terminate the agency on the ground that they needed the undisposed lots for the use of the family;...
    portion of said Exhibit "A" reads:... until all the subject property as... subdivided is fully disposed of.

    Respondent court, in its decision which is the subject of review, said:

    The said agency agreement expressly stipulates x x x until all the subject property as subdivided is... fully disposed of... testimony of Roberto
    Malundo (t.s.n. p. 99) that the plaintiff agreed to the intention of Mrs. Diolosa to reserve some lots for her own family use cannot prevail over the
    clear terms of the agency agreement. Moreover, the plaintiff denied that there... was an agreement to reserve any of the lots for the family

    Issues:

    only issue in this case is whether the petitioners could terminate the agency agreement, Exhibit "A", without paying damages to the private
    respondent

    Ruling:

    present appeal is manifestly without merit.

    Under the contract, Exhibit "A", herein petitioners allowed the private respondent to dispose of, sell, cede, transfer and convey xxx until all the
    subject property as subdivided is fully disposed of. The authority to sell is not extinguished until all the lots have been... disposed of.

    they become liable to the private respondent for damages for breach of contract.

    since the agency agreement, Exhibit "A", is a valid contract, the same may be rescinded only on grounds specified in Articles 1381 and 1382... not
    one of the grounds mentioned above is present which may be the subject of an action of rescission... petition is hereby dismissed

    Principles:
    :

    You might also like