Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • ATP Digest - Naguit Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Lawrence Riodeque
    36 views1 page
    Naguiat granted Queaño a loan and issued checks totaling ₱200,000, which Queaño claimed she did not receive. Queaño met with Naguiat and Ruby Ruebenfeldt, who Queaño said was Naguiat's agent and had retained the checks. The Court of Appeals found that Naguiat had clothed Ruebenfeldt with apparent authority as her agent through their interactions, and could not deny Ruebenfeldt's authority, establishing an agency by estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed there was sufficient evidence of a contract of agency between Naguiat and Ruebenfeldt.

    Original Description:

    Naguit vs CA Digest

    Original Title

    ATP Digest - Naguit vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Naguiat granted Queaño a loan and issued checks totaling ₱200,000, which Queaño claimed she did not receive. Queaño met with Naguiat and Ruby Ruebenfeldt, who Queaño said was Naguiat's agent and had retained the checks. The Court of Appeals found that Naguiat had clothed Ruebenfeldt with apparent authority as her agent through their interactions, and could not deny Ruebenfeldt's authority, establishing an agency by estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed there was sufficient evidence of a contract of agency between Naguiat and Ruebenfeldt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    ATP Digest - Naguit Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Lawrence Riodeque
    Naguiat granted Queaño a loan and issued checks totaling ₱200,000, which Queaño claimed she did not receive. Queaño met with Naguiat and Ruby Ruebenfeldt, who Queaño said was Naguiat's agent and had retained the checks. The Court of Appeals found that Naguiat had clothed Ruebenfeldt with apparent authority as her agent through their interactions, and could not deny Ruebenfeldt's authority, establishing an agency by estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed there was sufficient evidence of a contract of agency between Naguiat and Ruebenfeldt.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CELESTINA T. NAGUIAT vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA


    QUEAÑO Queano filed a complaint with the RTC annulling the REM which
    Tinga J. was eventually granted by the RTC and stopped the auction sale.

    DOCTRINE: One who clothes another with apparent authority as Naguiat vigorously insists that Queaño received the loan proceeds.
    his agent, and holds him out to the public as such, cannot be
    permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his agent, ISSUE: Was there a contract of Agency between Naguiat
    to the prejudice of innocent third parties dealing with such person and Ruebendfeldt?
    in good faith, and in the honest belief that he is what appears to be.
    HELD:
    FACTS: YES.
    Queaño applied with Naguiat for a loan in the amount of
    (P200,000.00), which Naguiat granted. Naguiat indorsed to Queaño Suffice to say, however, the existence of an agency relationship
    Associated Bank Check No. 090990 (dated 11 August 1980) for the between Naguiat and Ruebenfeldt is supported by ample evidence.
    amount of (P95,000.00), which was earlier issued to Naguiat by the As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, Ruebenfeldt was
    Corporate Resources Financing Corporation. She also issued her not a stranger or an unauthorized person. Naguiat instructed
    own Filmanbank Check No. 065314, to the order of Queaño, also Ruebenfeldt to withhold from Queaño the checks she issued or
    dated 11 August 1980 and for the amount of (P95,000.00). The indorsed to Queaño, pending delivery by the
    proceeds of these checks were to constitute the loan granted by latter of additional collateral. Ruebenfeldt served as agent of
    Naguiat to Queaño. Naguiat on the loan application of Queaño’s friend, Marilou
    Farralese, and it was in connection with that transaction that
    To secure the loan, Queaño executed a Deed of Real Estate Queaño came to know Naguiat. It was also Ruebenfeldt who
    Mortgage in favor of Naguiat. Queaño issued to Naguiat a accompanied Queaño in her meeting with Naguiat and on that
    promissory note for the amount of (P200,000.00), with interest at occasion, on her own and without Queaño asking for it, Reubenfeldt
    12% per annum, payable on 11 September 1980. Queaño also actually drew a check for the sum of P220,000.00 payable to
    issued a Security Bank and Trust Company check, postdated 11 Naguiat, to cover for Queaño’s alleged liability to Naguiat under the
    September 1980, for the amount of (P200,000.00) and payable to loan agreement.
    the order of Naguiat.
    The Court of Appeals recognized the existence of an “agency by
    Upon presentment, the Security Bank check was dishonored. estoppel” citing Article 1873 of the Civil Code. Apparently, it
    Queano requested SB to stop payment of her postdated check but considered that at the very least, as a consequence of the
    the latter refused due to policy. interaction between Naguiat and Ruebenfeldt, Queaño got the
    impression that Ruebenfeldt was the agent of Naguiat, but Naguiat
    Queaño received a letter from Naguiat’s lawyer, demanding did nothing to correct Queaño’s impression.
    settlement of the loan. Shortly thereafter, Queaño and one Ruby
    Ruebenfeldt (Ruebenfeldt) met with Naguiat. At the meeting, In that situation, the rule is clear. One who clothes another with
    Queaño told Naguiat that she did not receive the proceeds of the apparent authority as his agent, and holds him out to the public as
    loan, adding that the checks were retained by Ruebenfeldt, who such, cannot be permitted to deny the authority of such person to
    purportedly was Naguiat’s agent act as his agent, to the prejudice of innocent third parties dealing
    with such person in good faith, and in the honest belief that he is
    Naguiat applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage what he appears to be.27 The Court of Appeals is correct in
    with the Sheriff of Rizal Province, who then scheduled the invoking the said rule on agency by estoppel.
    foreclosure sale on 14 August 1981.

    You might also like