Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PLANTIFFS-APPELANTS
V.
LUY KIM GUAN AND LINO BANGAYAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
ISSUES
1. Was the contract executed by Luis Herrera and Luy Kim Guan a lease
contract? No
a. The only evidence in support of Natividads contentions is her
own testimony and that of her husbands. this was supposedly
corroborated by the declaration of the clerk of Atty. Enrique
Fernandez who supposedly notarized the lease contract. no
other evidence was adduced
b. On the other hand, Luy Kim Guan was able to present a
certification signed by the register of deeds of Dipolog to the
effect that a deed of sale was executed by Luis Herrera in favor
of Luy Kim Guan. The transactions were duly recorded and
covered by appropriate transfer certificates of title the
properties are now registered in the following manner
i. Lot 1740: Lino BAngayan
ii. Lot 4465: Carlos Eijansantos
iii. Lot 4467: Lino Bangayan and Luy Kim Guan in undivided
equal shares
c. Also, if it was a lease contract covering the 3 lots for a period of
20 years, there would have been no purpose for him to
constitute Luy Kim Guan as his atty-in-fact to administer and
take charge of the same properties already covered by the lease
contract
2. Were the transactions null and void because they were executed by
the atty-in-fact after the death of the Principal? NO
a. Date of death of Luis Herrera has not been satisfactorily proven.
b. The only evidence presented by Natividad is a letter from a
certain Candi informing them that Luis Herrera died in August
1936. this was rejected by the lower court for lack of
identification
c. On the other hand, there was a testimony of the witness Chung
Lian to the effect that when he was in Amoy in 1940, Luis
Herrera visited him showing that Luis was still alive at that time.
d. The atty-in-fact was executed in 1937, while the other was in
1939. if we are to believe the testimony, then Luis was still alive
when the documents were executed
e. Even if we assume that Luis died in 1936, Natividad failed to
show that Luy Kim Guan knew of this fact when he sold the
property. The death of the principal does not render the
act of an agent unenforceable, where the latter had no
knowledge of such extinguishment of the agency.
3. on the citizenship of the buyers of the lots
a. luy Chay was referred to as a citizen of the Philippines in the
deed of sale. Luy Chay could have been actually a Chinese
Citizen but the lot was already sold to Lino Bangayan
b. Lino Bangayan was declared by the lower court to have
established his Philippine Citizenship