Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/213937428/Art-1921-Lustan-vs-CA-GR-No-11192
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 04:06:02
Document Index: 30292851

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 1921', 'Art 1921', 'Art.1921', 'Art 1921', 'ART1920', 'Art 1921', 'Art 1923', 'Art 1922', 'Art 1923']

Art 1921 Lustan vs CA GR No 11192
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinArt 1921 Lustan vs CA GR No 11192Uploaded by May Sonza0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: gr 111924View Moregr 111924Copyright: © All Rights ReservedList price: $0.00Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentArt.1921
SONZA, Richelle May S.
G.R. No. 111924 Lustan vs. CA
Lustan was the registered owner of land located in Iloilo. Lustan then leased the property to spouses Parangan for a ter of ten !"#$ years and an annual rent of One %housand !P",###.##$ Pesos. &uring the period of lease, Parangan was regularly e'tending loans in s all a ounts to petitioner to defray her daily e'penses and to finance her daughter(s education. On )uly *+, "+,#, petitioner e'ecuted a Special Power of Attorney in fa-or of Parangan to secure an agricultural loan fro pri-ate respondent Philippine National .an/ !PN.$ with the aforesaid lot as collateral. On 0e1ruary "2, "+,*, a second Special Power of Attorney was e'ecuted 1y petitioner, 1y -irtue of which, Parangan was a1le to secure four !3$ additional loans.%he last three loans were without the /nowledge of herein petitioner and all the proceeds therefro were used 1y Parangan for his own 1enefit. 4pon disco-ery of the said loan, Lustan argues that the last three ortgages were -oid for lac/ of authority.
ISSUE: !"$ 5ON the loans 1inding with PN..
ade 1y Parangan without /nowledge of Lustan is
!*$ 5ON Lustan is lia1le for the actions of Parangan under the SPO.
industrial.. 23 ?-en when the agent has e'ceeded his authority. agricultural loan or credit acco odation that the attorney>in>fact ay o1tain and until the power of attorney is re-o/ed in a pu1lic instru ent and a copy of which is furnished to PN. its re-ocation shall not pre9udice the latter if they were not gi-en notice thereof.:
%he Special Power of Attorney e'ecuted 1y petitioner in fa-or of Parangan duly authori. 22 %he Special Power of Attorney particularly pro-ides that the sa e is good not only for the principal loan 1ut also for su1se=uent co ercial. the sa e continues to ha-e force and effect as against third persons who had no /nowledge of such lac/ of authority. If the agency has 1een entrusted for the purpose of contracting with specified persons. 6i-il 6ode$. <a-ing done so.RULING:
She totally failed to consider that said Special Powers of Attorney are a continuing one and a1sent a -alid re-ocation duly furnished to the ortgagee.
. on her 1ehalf and in the a1sence of any proof that the 1an/ had /nowledge that the last three loans were without the e'press authority of petitioner. "+*". an act is dee ed to ha-e 1een perfor ed within the scope of the agent(s authority if such is within the ter s of the power of attorney as written e-en if the agent has in fact e'ceeded the li its of his authority according to the understanding 1etween the principal and the agent. As far as third persons are concerned. Article "+*" of the 6i-il 6ode pro-ides7
8Art.ed the latter to represent and act on 1ehalf of the for er. the principal is solidarily lia1le with the agent if the for er allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers !Article "+"". petitioner clothed Parangan with authority to deal with PN. it cannot 1e pre9udiced there1y.
Documents Similar To Art 1921 Lustan vs CA GR No 111924Skip carousel001 CKH vs CA.docxNEGO_Holder_De Ocampo v. GatchalianCIR vs. Japan AirlinesTOP Management Programs Corporation v. FajardoTang Ho v Board of Tax AppealsLim vs Executive Secretary Gr. No. 151445SIson v. PeopleCase Digest- Pirovano vs. CirCannu vs Galang Digest(CRIMLAW) People v. Madarang (p.11, Case 2)Digest BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA vs. PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB INCORPORATEDArigo v. Swift - Case DigestMercado and Mercado v Espiritudigest case of pnb vs manila oil refining and company inc.People vs. YatarLee vs. CA (Case Digest)International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc., Et. Al. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), Et.al. (Bt Talong Case) - DigestTañada v Angara digestInternational Law Digest (3)Areola v CA_digestInfante vs Cunanan Etal.Gutierrez Hermanos vs OrenseMacke vs CamppsPittsburg Plate Glass vs. Director of Patents9 Inland Realty v. CACuison vs. CAManila Remnant vs CATuason vs. OrozcoCervantes vs CA DigestPrudential Bank vs. Court of Appeals CASE DIGESTDocuments About Power Of AttorneySkip carouselPower of AttorneyPower of Attorney for ChildIndiana Living WillJudgment Power of AttorneyBombay HC Exonerates Two Senior Advocates From Allegations of Misrepresenting Facts; Issues Contempt Notices Against Advocates Who Made the AllegationsGeneral Power of AttorneySpecial Power of AttorneyAmerican Bar AssociationNationwide Title Clearing Cease and Desist Demand Letter to Lisa Epstein Dated March 14, 2011Durable Power of AttorneyDK Emergency ChecklistMental Health Declaration and Power of AttorneyDamon Key Legal Alert Summer Fall 2014 FinalWrit of Mandamus CAVC -Stump-Texas Living WillThe Jenny, 72 U.S. 183 (1867)Stafford v. Crane, 382 F.3d 1175, 10th Cir. (2004)RIVERNIDER v U.S. BANK - CEL III AFFIDAVIT RE ORLY TAITZ - Rivernider - CEL AffidavitAfter the Diagnosis (Erica F. Wood)Alaska Living WillIllinois Living WillArizona Living WillColorado Living WillNew Jersey Living WillRussell v. Chase Investment Services Corp, 10th Cir. (2010)In Re JohnsonHawaii Living WillWisconsin Living WillIdaho Living WillMore From May SonzaSkip carouselunworddonhgPoli1121Doc225Political Exec DeptUntitled 15AdrUntitled 2 eUntitled 2 b2nd Batch Bo2Pol casesTitled 222PolPol Rev Cases2nd Batch Bo2Cases-conflicts of LawART1920-1923Art 1921 Lustan vs CA GR No 11192Art 1923 Garcia vs de Manzano GR No L 13414 SONZA Richelle May SCases-conflicts of LawIP casesLingayen Gulf v Baltazar. GR L-4824. Jun 30, 1953. 93 Phil 404cases_tax.docArt 1922 Rammani vs CA GR No 85494 Art 1923 Garcia vs de Manzano GR No L 13414 Lingayen Gulf v Baltazar. GR L-4824. Jun 30, 1953. 93 Phil 40449828571 Manning FinalIP cases.doc