Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 411 views

    09 Inland Realty Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Hannah Escudero
    This case discusses whether Inland Realty can claim a 5% broker's commission from the sale of shares of Architect's Bldg. Inc. owned by Gregorio Araneta Inc. Inland Realty was initially granted authority to sell the shares but several extensions expired. Two years later, the shares were sold to Stanford Microsystems for a higher price. Both lower courts dismissed Inland's claim because their authority had expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Inland was not the "efficient procuring cause" of the sale as they did not participate in crucial events leading to the final sale like negotiations or document processing.

    Copyright:

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

    09 Inland Realty Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Hannah Escudero
    411 views1 page
    This case discusses whether Inland Realty can claim a 5% broker's commission from the sale of shares of Architect's Bldg. Inc. owned by Gregorio Araneta Inc. Inland Realty was initially granted authority to sell the shares but several extensions expired. Two years later, the shares were sold to Stanford Microsystems for a higher price. Both lower courts dismissed Inland's claim because their authority had expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Inland was not the "efficient procuring cause" of the sale as they did not participate in crucial events leading to the final sale like negotiations or document processing.

    Original Description:

    sdfsdgsdgsd

    Original Title

    09 Inland Realty 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?

    This case discusses whether Inland Realty can claim a 5% broker's commission from the sale of shares of Architect's Bldg. Inc. owned by Gregorio Araneta Inc. Inland Realty was initially granted authority to sell the shares but several extensions expired. Two years later, the shares were sold to Stanford Microsystems for a higher price. Both lower courts dismissed Inland's claim because their authority had expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Inland was not the "efficient procuring cause" of the sale as they did not participate in crucial events leading to the final sale like negotiations or document processing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    411 views1 page

    09 Inland Realty Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Hannah Escudero
    This case discusses whether Inland Realty can claim a 5% broker's commission from the sale of shares of Architect's Bldg. Inc. owned by Gregorio Araneta Inc. Inland Realty was initially granted authority to sell the shares but several extensions expired. Two years later, the shares were sold to Stanford Microsystems for a higher price. Both lower courts dismissed Inland's claim because their authority had expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Inland was not the "efficient procuring cause" of the sale as they did not participate in crucial events leading to the final sale like negotiations or document processing.

    Copyright:

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

    Name: Justin Ian Manjares Class: AGENCY

    Case Citation: Inland Realty vs CA (GR 76969) Topic: Efficient Procuring Cause

    Facts:

    Petitoner Inland Realty is a corporation in the real estate business and brokerages. Gregorio Araneta (respondent) through
    its Assistant general manager J. Armando Eduque, granted Inland Realty authority to sell the total holdings of Gregorio
    Araneta Inc. in Architects Bldg. Inc. at a first come first serve basis. At the time, the property was valued at 98%/9,800
    shares of stock at P1,500 per share for 30 days.

    Stanford Microsystems couterproposed to Inland Realty to buy the property at 9,800 shares at P1,000 per share. Total of
    P9.8M P4.9M payable in 5 years at 12% per annum interest until fully paid. Araneta Inc. wrote to Inland Realty that the
    price offered by Stanford was too low.

    Inlands authroity to sell was extended 3 times, 30 days each last extension was up to December 2, 1975. On July 8,
    1977, Inland finally sold the shares to Stanford at P13.5M. Inland sent a demand letter to Araneta Inc. for the payment of
    their 5% brokers commission declined by the respondent because respondent claimed that the authority to sell had long
    expired. Petitioners were no longer privy to the consummation of the sale.

    Both RTC and CA dismissed Inlands petition because the authority to sell expired on January 1, 1976 (30 days from Dec.
    2, 1975). Inland contends that as a broker it was already entitled to the commission by merely introducing the seller to the
    prospective buyer who ultimately purchased the shares.

    Issue(s):

    *W/N Inland can claim the 5% brokers commission

    Held:

    NO. Inland Realty is not the efficient procuring cause of the sale. While they had authority, Inland never exhibited any
    substantial acts that proximately, and causatively led to the sale. Inland merely submitted Stanfords name as prospective
    buyer. By selling the property after the authority to sell had expired, it shows that Inland was non-participative in the
    crucial events that contributed to the consummation of the sale. They did not participate in the negotiations, drafting of
    the deed of sale, document processing, finalization of terms and conditions etc.

    Petition denied.

    You might also like