Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    Hermosa V Longara

    Uploaded by

    Soc
    This case involves claims made by Epifanio Longara against the estate of Fernando Hermosa, Sr. for credit advances made to Hermosa Sr. and his family members from 1932 to 1947. The Supreme Court held that: 1) The obligation to repay the advances was not subject to a condition exclusively dependent on the debtor's will since the condition of repayment depended on the sale of property in Spain owned by the debtor, not just his will. 2) The sale of the property in Spain after the debtor's death did not invalidate the claim since there was no evidence of collusion between the administrator and claimant. 3) The action to recover the advances had not prescribed since the obligation only

    Copyright:

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

    Hermosa V Longara

    Uploaded by

    Soc
    76 views2 pages
    This case involves claims made by Epifanio Longara against the estate of Fernando Hermosa, Sr. for credit advances made to Hermosa Sr. and his family members from 1932 to 1947. The Supreme Court held that: 1) The obligation to repay the advances was not subject to a condition exclusively dependent on the debtor's will since the condition of repayment depended on the sale of property in Spain owned by the debtor, not just his will. 2) The sale of the property in Spain after the debtor's death did not invalidate the claim since there was no evidence of collusion between the administrator and claimant. 3) The action to recover the advances had not prescribed since the obligation only

    Original Description:

    Digest in Oblicon

    Original Title

    Hermosa v Longara

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves claims made by Epifanio Longara against the estate of Fernando Hermosa, Sr. for credit advances made to Hermosa Sr. and his family members from 1932 to 1947. The Supreme Court held that: 1) The obligation to repay the advances was not subject to a condition exclusively dependent on the debtor's will since the condition of repayment depended on the sale of property in Spain owned by the debtor, not just his will. 2) The sale of the property in Spain after the debtor's death did not invalidate the claim since there was no evidence of collusion between the administrator and claimant. 3) The action to recover the advances had not prescribed since the obligation only

    Copyright:

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

    Hermosa V Longara

    Uploaded by

    Soc
    This case involves claims made by Epifanio Longara against the estate of Fernando Hermosa, Sr. for credit advances made to Hermosa Sr. and his family members from 1932 to 1947. The Supreme Court held that: 1) The obligation to repay the advances was not subject to a condition exclusively dependent on the debtor's will since the condition of repayment depended on the sale of property in Spain owned by the debtor, not just his will. 2) The sale of the property in Spain after the debtor's death did not invalidate the claim since there was no evidence of collusion between the administrator and claimant. 3) The action to recover the advances had not prescribed since the obligation only

    Copyright:

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

    Hermosa v.

    Longara
    Petitioner: Luz Hermosa and Fernando Hermosa, Jr.
    Respondent: Epifanio Longara
    Topic: Types of condition as to caused mixed
    Facts:

    Epifanio M. Longara presented claims against the intestate estate of Fernando


    Hermosa, Sr.
    These claims are of three kinds: credit advances made to intestate from 1932 to 1944,
    made to his son Francisco Hermosa and his grandson Fernando Hermosa, Jr. from 1945
    to 1947.
    Intestate had asked for the credit advances for himself and for the members of his family
    "on condition that their payment should be made by Fernando Hermosa, Sr. as soon as
    he receive funds derived from the sale of his property in Spain."
    CA held that payment of the advances did not become due until the administratrix sold
    the property in November 1947, and the same was paid subsequently.
    Claim was filed on October 2, 1948.

    Issues:
    1. WoN the obligation was subject to a condition exclusively dependent upon the will of the
    debtor and therefore null and void
    NO
    The condition does not depend exclusively upon the will of the debtor, but also upon
    other circumstances beyond his power or control.
    The condition implies that the intestate had already decided to sell his house, or at least
    that he had made his creditors believe that he had done so. All that was needed to make
    his obligation demandable is that the sale be consummated and the price thereof
    remitted to the islands.
    The will to sell on the part of the intestate was present in fact, or presumed legally to
    exist, although the price and other conditions thereof were still within his discretion and
    final approval.
    Other conditions needed to concur to effect the sale: presence of a buyer willing to
    purchase the property
    2. WoN the sale is valid even though not effected in the lifetime of the debtor, but after his
    death and by his administrator
    YES
    There was no evidence to show that the claim was the product of a collusion/connivance
    between the administratrix and the claimant.
    The promise made by the intestate to pay for credit advances can be implied from the
    facts that receipts had been preserved.
    Regularity of advances and close relationship also support this conclusion.
    3. WoN the action to recover advances has prescribed
    NO
    Action to recover accrued only on the date the money became available.

    4. WoN the claims furnished to intestates grandson should be allowed


    NO
    The obligation to furnish support is personal and extinguished upon the death of the
    person obliged.
    Upon the death of a principal, his agents authority/authorization is deemed terminated.

    You might also like