Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    San Diego, Sr. v. Nombre

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Brava
    (1) Adelo Nombre, as judicial administrator, leased a fishpond belonging to an estate to Pedro Escanlar for 3 years at P3,000 yearly rental without court approval. (2) Nombre was later removed as administrator and refused to surrender the fishpond to the new administrator, Sofronio Campillanos. (3) Campillanos then filed a motion to lease the fishpond to Moises San Diego for 5 years at P5,000 yearly rental, without notifying Escanlar. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the provisions on agency do not apply to a judicial administrator as they are appointed by and answerable to the

    Copyright:

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

    San Diego, Sr. v. Nombre

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Brava
    53 views1 page
    (1) Adelo Nombre, as judicial administrator, leased a fishpond belonging to an estate to Pedro Escanlar for 3 years at P3,000 yearly rental without court approval. (2) Nombre was later removed as administrator and refused to surrender the fishpond to the new administrator, Sofronio Campillanos. (3) Campillanos then filed a motion to lease the fishpond to Moises San Diego for 5 years at P5,000 yearly rental, without notifying Escanlar. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the provisions on agency do not apply to a judicial administrator as they are appointed by and answerable to the

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Adelo Nombre, as judicial administrator, leased a fishpond belonging to an estate to Pedro Escanlar for 3 years at P3,000 yearly rental without court approval. (2) Nombre was later removed as administrator and refused to surrender the fishpond to the new administrator, Sofronio Campillanos. (3) Campillanos then filed a motion to lease the fishpond to Moises San Diego for 5 years at P5,000 yearly rental, without notifying Escanlar. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the provisions on agency do not apply to a judicial administrator as they are appointed by and answerable to the

    Copyright:

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

    San Diego, Sr. v. Nombre

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Brava
    (1) Adelo Nombre, as judicial administrator, leased a fishpond belonging to an estate to Pedro Escanlar for 3 years at P3,000 yearly rental without court approval. (2) Nombre was later removed as administrator and refused to surrender the fishpond to the new administrator, Sofronio Campillanos. (3) Campillanos then filed a motion to lease the fishpond to Moises San Diego for 5 years at P5,000 yearly rental, without notifying Escanlar. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the provisions on agency do not apply to a judicial administrator as they are appointed by and answerable to the

    Copyright:

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

    SAN DIEGO v NOMBRE (Yap)

    11 SCRA 165, May 29, 1964 (5) However, on appeal, the CA ruled:
    Petitioner/s: MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR.
    Respondent/s: ADELO NOMBRE and PEDRO ESCANLAR No such limitation on the power of a judicial administrator to grant
    lease of property placed under his custody is provided for in the
    Doctrine: The provisions on agency should not apply to a judicial present law. Under Art. 1647, it is only when the lease is to be
    administrator. A judicial administrator is appointed by the court. He is not only recorded in the Registry of Property that it cannot be instituted
    the representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the estate. without special authority. Thus, regardless of the period of lease,
    Before entering into his duties, he is required to file a bond. These there is no need for special authority unless the contract is to be
    circumstances are not required in agency. The agent is only answerable to recorded in the Registry.
    his principal. The protection which law gives the principal in limiting the
    powers and rights of an agent stems from the fact that control by the principal Rule 85, Sec. 3 of the ROC authorizes a judicial administrator to
    can only be through agreements. Whereas, the acts of a judicial administer the estate of the deceased not disposed by will, for
    administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the purposes of liquidation and distribution. He may, therefore, exercise
    appointing court. all acts of administration without special authority of the Court; such
    as the leasing the property. And where the lease has been formally
    Facts: entered into, the court cannot, in the same proceeding, annul the
    (1) Respondent Adelo Nombre was the duly constituted judicial same. The proper remedy would be a separate action by the
    administrator. As such, he leased one of the properties of the estate administrator or the heirs to annul the lease.
    —a fishpond—to Pedro Escanlar, the other respondent. The terms of
    the lease was for 3 years, with a yearly rental of P3,000. The (6) On appeal to the SC, petitioner contends that Art. 1878(8) limits the
    transaction was done without previous authority or approval of the right of a judicial administrator to lease the real property without prior
    Court. court authority and approval, if it exceeds 1 year. The lease in favor
    of Escalanlar, being 3 years and without court approval, is therefore
    (2) A year after, Nombre was removed as administrator, and was void.
    replaced by one Sofronio Campillanos. Escalanlar was cited for
    contempt for allegedly refusing to surrender the fishpond to the newly Issue: W/N the provisions on Agency should apply in this case. (NO)
    appointed administrator.
    Held:
    (3) Subsequently, Campillanos filed a motion for authority to execute a
    lease contract over the fishpond, in favor of petitioner Moises San The provisions on agency should not apply to a judicial administrator. A
    Diego, for 5 years with yearly rental of P5,000. Escalanlar was not judicial administrator is appointed by the court. He is not only the
    notified of the said motion. Nombre, on the other hand, opposed to representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the estate.
    the motion, pointing out that the fishpond was leased by him to Before entering into his duties, he is required to file a bond. These
    Escalandar for 3 years. He alleged that the validity of the lease circumstances are not required in agency. The agent is only answerable to
    contract entered into by a judicial administrator must be recognized his principal. The protection which law gives the principal in limiting the
    unless declared void in a separate action. powers and rights of an agent stems from the fact that control by the principal
    can only be through agreements. Whereas, the acts of a judicial
    (4) The lower court declared the contract in favor of Escanlar null and administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the
    void for want of judicial authority and that San Diego offered better appointing court.
    lease conditions than Escanlar. In light of this, Escanlar agreed to
    increase the rental to P5,000 after the termination of his original Fallo: The decision of the CA was affirmed.
    contract. However, the trial judge stated that such contract was
    fraudulent and executed in bad faith because Nombre was removed
    as administrator and the rentals of the property was inadequate.

    You might also like