Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 400 views

    Hernandez V Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    nadgb
    Cornelia Hernandez owned land jointly with relatives that the government sought to expropriate for a highway expansion. She appointed her relative Cecilio as her attorney to negotiate the sale. Cecilio negotiated a compensation amount but refused to provide an accounting to Cornelia of the total or her share. He had Cornelia sign a receipt and quitclaim document relinquishing her share for less than she was owed. The Supreme Court ruled the receipt was fraudulent and void as Cecilio took advantage of his power as attorney to deprive Cornelia of her fair share of compensation for the land. The Court set aside the lower court decision and upheld Cornelia's right to her full one-third share of the compensation amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hernandez V Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    nadgb
    400 views2 pages
    Cornelia Hernandez owned land jointly with relatives that the government sought to expropriate for a highway expansion. She appointed her relative Cecilio as her attorney to negotiate the sale. Cecilio negotiated a compensation amount but refused to provide an accounting to Cornelia of the total or her share. He had Cornelia sign a receipt and quitclaim document relinquishing her share for less than she was owed. The Supreme Court ruled the receipt was fraudulent and void as Cecilio took advantage of his power as attorney to deprive Cornelia of her fair share of compensation for the land. The Court set aside the lower court decision and upheld Cornelia's right to her full one-third share of the compensation amount.

    Original Description:

    Civil Law

    Original Title

    Hernandez v Hernandez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cornelia Hernandez owned land jointly with relatives that the government sought to expropriate for a highway expansion. She appointed her relative Cecilio as her attorney to negotiate the sale. Cecilio negotiated a compensation amount but refused to provide an accounting to Cornelia of the total or her share. He had Cornelia sign a receipt and quitclaim document relinquishing her share for less than she was owed. The Supreme Court ruled the receipt was fraudulent and void as Cecilio took advantage of his power as attorney to deprive Cornelia of her fair share of compensation for the land. The Court set aside the lower court decision and upheld Cornelia's right to her full one-third share of the compensation amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    400 views2 pages

    Hernandez V Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    nadgb
    Cornelia Hernandez owned land jointly with relatives that the government sought to expropriate for a highway expansion. She appointed her relative Cecilio as her attorney to negotiate the sale. Cecilio negotiated a compensation amount but refused to provide an accounting to Cornelia of the total or her share. He had Cornelia sign a receipt and quitclaim document relinquishing her share for less than she was owed. The Supreme Court ruled the receipt was fraudulent and void as Cecilio took advantage of his power as attorney to deprive Cornelia of her fair share of compensation for the land. The Court set aside the lower court decision and upheld Cornelia's right to her full one-third share of the compensation amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    CORNELIA M. HERNANDEZ v. CECILIO F.

    HERNANDEZ
    GR No. 158576, March 9, 2011
    PONENTE: PEREZ, J.

    FACTS:
    The DPWH offered to purchase a portion of a parcel of land with an area of 80,133 square meters,
    located at San Rafael, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, for use in the expansion of the South Luzon
    Expressway. The land is pro-indiviso owned by petitioner Cornelia, Atty. Jose M. Hernandez,
    deceased father of respondent Cecilio, represented by Paciencia Hernandez and Mena
    Hernandez, also deceased and represented by her heirs. After a series of negotiations with the
    DPWH, the last offer stood at P70.00 per square meter. They still did not accept the offer and
    the government was forced to file an expropriation case.The owners of the Hernandez property
    executed a letter indicating: (1) Cecilio as the representative of the owners of the land; and (2)
    the compensation he gets in doing such job. Cornelia and her other co-owners executed an
    irrevocable SPA, appointing Cecilio Hernandez as their true and lawful attorney. The SPA stated
    that the authority shall be irrevocable and continue to be binding all throughout the negotiation.
    There was no mention of the compensation scheme for Cecilio.The just compensation for the
    condemned properties was fixed at P1,500.00 per square meter. With total area of 14,643 square
    meters, P21,964,500.00 will be the just compensation.

    However, petitioner executed a Revocation of the SPA withdrawing the authority earlier
    granted to Cecilio in the SPA. Without the termination of counsel on record, Cornelia, moved for
    the withdrawal of her 1/3 share of the just compensation, which is equivalent to
    P7,321,500.00.The trial court took cognizance of the irrevocable nature of the SPA. Cecilio,
    therefore, was able to get not just 1/3 of, but the entire sum of the compensation. Cornelia
    received from Cecilio a BPI Check amounting to P1,123,000.00. The check was however
    accompanied by a Receipt and Quitclaim document in favor of Cecilio. The check was received
    by Cornelia with a heavy heart. She averred in her ex-parte testimony that she was forced to
    receive such amount because she needs the money immediately for medical expenses due to
    her frail condition.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding the validity of the receipt and quitclaim
    document contrary to law and jurisprudence.
    RULING:
    As pro-indiviso landowners of the property taken, each one of them ought to receive an equal
    share or 1/3 of the total amount which is equivalent to P7,321,500.00. What is on record is that
    Cornelia asked for an accounting of the just compensation from Cecilio several times, but the
    request remained unheeded. Instead of an accounting, what Cornelia received was a receipt and
    quitclaim document that was ready for signing. Based on the attending circumstances, the
    receipt and quitclaim document is an act of fraud perpetuated by Cecilio. Very clearly, both the
    service contract of 11 November 1993 letter- agreement, and the later receipt and quitclaim
    document, the first vitiated by mistake and the second being fraudulent, are void. Hence, the
    petition is granted and the decision of the CA is set aside.

    You might also like