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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 84 views

    17.1 Lopez V

    Uploaded by

    BREL GOSIMAT
    The document discusses the case Lopez v. Court of Appeals. It establishes that the death of a principal or agent typically extinguishes the contract of agency. However, there are exceptions under Articles 1930 and 1931 of the Civil Code. The case involved a lawyer who entered into a compromise agreement on behalf of a client who had died two years prior. As the client's death extinguished the contract of agency, the lawyer's actions taken after the client's death were deemed void.

    Copyright:

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

    17.1 Lopez V

    Uploaded by

    BREL GOSIMAT
    84 views2 pages
    The document discusses the case Lopez v. Court of Appeals. It establishes that the death of a principal or agent typically extinguishes the contract of agency. However, there are exceptions under Articles 1930 and 1931 of the Civil Code. The case involved a lawyer who entered into a compromise agreement on behalf of a client who had died two years prior. As the client's death extinguished the contract of agency, the lawyer's actions taken after the client's death were deemed void.

    Original Title

    17.1 Lopez v

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the case Lopez v. Court of Appeals. It establishes that the death of a principal or agent typically extinguishes the contract of agency. However, there are exceptions under Articles 1930 and 1931 of the Civil Code. The case involved a lawyer who entered into a compromise agreement on behalf of a client who had died two years prior. As the client's death extinguished the contract of agency, the lawyer's actions taken after the client's death were deemed void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    84 views2 pages

    17.1 Lopez V

    Uploaded by

    BREL GOSIMAT
    The document discusses the case Lopez v. Court of Appeals. It establishes that the death of a principal or agent typically extinguishes the contract of agency. However, there are exceptions under Articles 1930 and 1931 of the Civil Code. The case involved a lawyer who entered into a compromise agreement on behalf of a client who had died two years prior. As the client's death extinguished the contract of agency, the lawyer's actions taken after the client's death were deemed void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Lopez v.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. Nos. 163959 & 177855 (Resolution), [August 1, 2018])
    By the contract of agency, 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. For a contract of agency to exist, therefore, the following requisites must concur,
    namely: (1) there must be consent coming from persons or entities having the juridical
    capacity and capacity to act to enter into such contract; (2) there must exist an object in
    the form of services to be undertaken by the agent in favor of the principal; and (3) there
    must be a cause or consideration for the agency. 
    One of the modes of extinguishing a contract of agency is by the death of either the
    principal or the agent. In Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation, the Court
    declared that because death of the principal extinguished the agency, it should follow  a
    fortiori that any act of the agent after the death of his principal should be held void ab
    initio unless the act fell under the exceptions established under Article 1930 and Article
    1931 of the Civil Code. The exceptions should be strictly construed. In other words, the
    general rule is that the death of the principal or, by analogy, the agent extinguishes the
    contract of agency, unless any of the circumstances provided for under Article 1930 or
    Article 1931 obtains; in which case, notwithstanding the death of either principal or
    agent, the contract of agency continues to exist. 
    Atty. Angeles asserted that he had been authorized by the Lopezes to enter into
    the Compromise Agreement; and that his authority had formed part of the original pre-
    trial records of the RTC.
    Marcelino Lopez died on December 3, 2009, as borne out by the Certificate of
    Death submitted by his heirs. As such, the Compromise Agreement, which was filed on
    February 2, 2012, was entered into more than two years after the death of Marcelino
    Lopez. Considering that Atty. Angeles had ceased to be the agent upon the death of
    Marcelino Lopez, Atty. Angeles' execution and submission of the Compromise
    Agreement in behalf of the Lopezes by virtue of the special power of attorney executed
    in his favor by Marcelino Lopez were void ab initio and of no effect. The special power
    of attorney executed by Marcelino Lopez in favor of Atty. Angeles had by then
    become functus officio. For the same reason, Atty. Angeles had no authority to withdraw
    the petition for review on certiorari as far as the interest in the suit of the now-deceased
    principal and his successors-in-interest was concerned.
     
    |||
    Lopez v. Court of Appeals
    G.R. Nos. 163959 & 177855 (Resolution), [August 1, 2018])

     Lawyer, acting on SPA entered into a comproise agreement involving his client who
    died two years earlier
    The general rule is that the death of the principal or, by analogy, the agent extinguishes
    the contract of agency, unless any of the circumstances provided for under Article 1930
    or Article 1931 obtains; in which case, notwithstanding the death of either principal or
    agent, the contract of agency continues to exist. 
    The exceptions should be strictly construed.

    You might also like