AgencyDPFebruary32014

If mauro a garrucho acted in his capacity

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: asserting its right to the remittance that came through the bank in June to Welch, Fairchild & Co., consisting of $13,000 of the proceeds of this insurance. Zayco v. Serra, 49 Phil 985 (1925) ATIENZA DOCTRINE: A contract entered into, in excess of authority, is voidable (Note: This is a 1925 case) FACTS: On February 2, 1919, Salvador Serra, Juan J. Vidauzarraga, Felix Vidauzarraga, Dionisio Vidauzarraga, and Lazaro Mota, as parties (Palma Central Group) on the one hand, and Severo Alejano, the Estate of Hilario Cordova, Lorenzo Zayco, the Estate of Tomasa Gemora, Rogaciano Albayda, and Josefa Pacheco, as parties at the other side (Palmer’s Group). The two sides agree to a contract that involves the Palma Central to constructs mills and roads for the sugar canes of Planters. The Palma Group was did not construct the mill and did not finish the railroad and therefore, Lorenzo Zayco brought an action against the Palma Group. Salvador Serra contends that the contract in question was null and void because the persons who signed it on behalf of the estates of Tomasa Gemora and Hilario Cordova were not duly authorized to represent said estates. TC: Dismissed the complaint of Zayco CA: No mention ISSUE: WON the contract is null and void for being entered into without proper authority HELD: NO. Voidable According to the SC, Rogaciano Albayda who represented the Gemora estate was its judicial administrator and Gregorio Cordova who signed the contract on behalf of the Cordova estate was its judicial its judicial administrator and Greogorio Cordova who signed the contract on behalf of the Cordova estate was the de facto administrator of that estate. Assuming that these persons exceeded their authority, the contract would nevertheless not be an absolute nullity, but simply voidable at the instance of the parties who had been improperly represented. It follows that under the circumstances of this case, the defendant Serra is hardly in position to assert that the entire contr...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online