Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

WILLIAM UY v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 156660 2009-08-24	ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS' ASSOCIATION v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Uy v. Court of Appeals,[15] this Court held that the agents of the parties to a contract do not have the right to bring an action even if they rendered some service on behalf of their principals. To quote from that decision: ...[Petitioners] are mere agents of the owners of the land subject of the sale. As agents, they only render some service or do something in representation or on behalf of their principals. The rendering of such service did not make them parties to the contracts of sale executed in behalf of the latter. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto as against each other, the real parties-in-interest, either as plaintiff or defendant, in an action upon that contract must, generally, either be parties to said contract. (emphasis and words in brackets ours)
	GR NO. 150128 2006-08-31	ANGELES v. PNR GARCIA, J.
The legal situation is, however, different where an agent is constituted as an assignee. In such a case, the agent may, in his own behalf, sue on a contract made for his principal, as an assignee of such contract. The rule requiring every action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest recognizes the assignment of rights of action and also recognizes that when one has a right assigned to him, he is then the real party-in-interest and may maintain an action upon such claim or right.[4]
	GR NO. 139523 2006-05-26	SPS. FELIPE AND LETICIA CANNU v. SPS. GIL AND FERNANDINA GALANG AND NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Settled is the rule that rescission or, more accurately, resolution,[33] of a party to an obligation under Article 1191[34] is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party that violates the reciprocity between them.[35] Article 1191 reads:Art. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
	GR No. 139523 2005-05-26	SPS. FELIPE AND LETICIA CANNU v. SPS. GIL AND FERNANDINA GALANG AND NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Settled is the rule that rescission or, more accurately, resolution,[33] of a party to an obligation under Article 1191[34] is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party that violates the reciprocity between them.[35] Article 1191 reads:Art. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
	GR No. 131680 2000-09-14	SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY v. UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF TAIWAN PANGANIBAN, J.
We are not persuaded. The CA made a factual finding that UIGDC and SBGCCI were in possession of the property when SBMA took over. Moreover, it also found that they had already made substantial investments in the project. We find no reason at this time to justify a different conclusion. In view of these circumstances, we agree with the CA that UIGDC and SBGCCI stand to be benefitted or injured by the present suit and should be deemed real parties in interest.[23]