There is nothing in the recordwhich would

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: t the Heredia had in his hands that amount of money, the property of her co­plaintiff, Marciana Canon, she proposed that they make a joint investment in the 7 land. A Deed of Conditional Sale was executed with a right to repurchase at the end of 1yr and obligating himself to make monthly payments in consideration of the right to retain the land in possession in sufficient amount to bring 17% interest per annum on Nepomuceno and Canon’s investments. ● The title to the land under the deed was placed in the name of Heredia and he extended the period within which the vendor had the privilege of repurchase. ● Nepomuceno and Canon insisted that Heredia took the deed to the land in his own name without their knowledge or consent but unable to substantiate their claim. ● A year after the transaction, a cloud was cast on the title to the land by the institution of proceedings for the recovery of possession by third parties ○ With this, plaintiffs initiated an action seeking to recover from Heredia the whole of the amount of money they invested with interest from the date of investment, alleging that the purchase of the land was not made in accordance with their (principal: Nepomuceno and Canon) instructions, or on their account. TC: favored Nepomuceno and Canon ● Issue: 1. 2. Whether or not Heredia was an agent of the plaintiffs (Nepomuceno and Canon). YES Whether or not Heredia exercised reasonable care and diligence in the performance of his duty as agent. YES Held: Heredia acted merely as the agent for the plaintiffs throughout the entire transaction; that the purchase of the land was made not only with their full knowledge and consent, but at their suggestion; and that after the purchase had been effected, the plaintiffs, with full knowledge of the facts, approved and ratified the actions of their agent in the premises. There is nothing in the record, which would indicate that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence in the performance of his duty as such agent, or that he undertook to guarantee the vendor’s title to the land purchased by direction of the plaintiffs. SC: Judgment revers...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online