Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 200 views

    Ang Vs Ang Digest

    Uploaded by

    AM
    Theodore and Nancy Ang loaned Alan and EmAng $300,000 in 1992. Despite demands for payment over many years, Alan and EmAng failed to repay the loan. By 2006, with accumulated interest, the amount owed had grown to $719,671.23. Theodore and Nancy Ang, residing in the US, appointed a lawyer, Atty. Aceron, as their attorney-in-fact to file a collection case against Alan and EmAng in the Philippines. The court had to determine if Atty. Aceron, as the petitioners' representative, was the real party in interest in the case. The court held that Atty. Aceron was not the real party in interest since he did not

    Copyright:

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

    Ang Vs Ang Digest

    Uploaded by

    AM
    200 views1 page
    Theodore and Nancy Ang loaned Alan and EmAng $300,000 in 1992. Despite demands for payment over many years, Alan and EmAng failed to repay the loan. By 2006, with accumulated interest, the amount owed had grown to $719,671.23. Theodore and Nancy Ang, residing in the US, appointed a lawyer, Atty. Aceron, as their attorney-in-fact to file a collection case against Alan and EmAng in the Philippines. The court had to determine if Atty. Aceron, as the petitioners' representative, was the real party in interest in the case. The court held that Atty. Aceron was not the real party in interest since he did not

    Original Title

    231277554-Ang-vs-Ang-Digest.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Theodore and Nancy Ang loaned Alan and EmAng $300,000 in 1992. Despite demands for payment over many years, Alan and EmAng failed to repay the loan. By 2006, with accumulated interest, the amount owed had grown to $719,671.23. Theodore and Nancy Ang, residing in the US, appointed a lawyer, Atty. Aceron, as their attorney-in-fact to file a collection case against Alan and EmAng in the Philippines. The court had to determine if Atty. Aceron, as the petitioners' representative, was the real party in interest in the case. The court held that Atty. Aceron was not the real party in interest since he did not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    200 views1 page

    Ang Vs Ang Digest

    Uploaded by

    AM
    Theodore and Nancy Ang loaned Alan and EmAng $300,000 in 1992. Despite demands for payment over many years, Alan and EmAng failed to repay the loan. By 2006, with accumulated interest, the amount owed had grown to $719,671.23. Theodore and Nancy Ang, residing in the US, appointed a lawyer, Atty. Aceron, as their attorney-in-fact to file a collection case against Alan and EmAng in the Philippines. The court had to determine if Atty. Aceron, as the petitioners' representative, was the real party in interest in the case. The court held that Atty. Aceron was not the real party in interest since he did not

    Copyright:

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

    Parties to Civil Actions

    AngvsAng
    G.R. No. 186993
    August 22, 2012

    Facts:
    On September 2, 1992, spouses Alan and EmAng (respondents)
    obtained a loan in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand U.S. Dollars
    (US$300,000.00) from Theodore and Nancy Ang (petitioners). On even
    date, the respondents executed a promissory note
    in favor of the petitioners
    wherein they promised to pay the latter the said amount, with interest at the
    rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, upon demand. However, despite
    repeated demands, the respondents failed to pay the petitioners.

    Thus, on August 28, 2006, the petitioners sent the respondents a


    demand letter asking them to pay their outstanding debt which, at that time,
    already amounted to Seven Hundred Nineteen Thousand, Six Hundred
    Seventy-One U.S. Dollars and Twenty-Three Cents (US$719,671.23),
    inclusive of the ten percent (10%) annual interest that had accumulated over
    the years. Notwithstanding the receipt of the said demand letter, the
    respondents still failed to settle their loan obligation.

    On August 6, 2006, the petitioners, who were then residing in Los


    Angeles, California, United States of America (USA), executed their
    respective Special Powers of Attorney6
    in favor of Attorney Eldrige Marvin
    B. Aceron (Atty. Aceron) for the purpose of filing an action in court against
    the respondents. On September 15, 2006, Atty. Aceron, in behalf of the
    petitioners, filed a Complaint7
    for collection of sum of money with the RTC
    of Quezon City against the respondents.

    Issues:
    WON Atty. Aceron, being merely a representative of the petitioners, is not the real party in interest
    in the case.

    Held:
    Atty. Aceron, despite being the attorney-in-fact of the petitioners, is not a real party in interest in
    the case below. Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court reads:

    Sec. 2.Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party


    who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or
    the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized
    by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
    name of the real party in interest.

    Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material


    interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the
    case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. A
    real party in interest is the party who, by the substantive law, has the right
    sought to be enforced.

    Applying the foregoing rule, it is clear that Atty. Aceron is not a real
    party in interest in the case below as he does not stand to be benefited or
    injured by any judgment therein. He was merely appointed by the
    petitioners as their attorney-in-fact for the limited purpose of filing and
    prosecuting the complaint against the respondents. Such appointment,
    however, does not mean that he is subrogated into the rights of petitioners
    and ought to be considered as a real party in interest.

    Being merely a representative of the petitioners, Atty. Aceron in his


    personal capacity does not have the right to file the complaint below against
    the respondents. He may only do so, as what he did, in behalf of the
    petitioners – the real parties in interest. To stress, the right sought to be enforced in the case below
    belongs to the petitioners and not to Atty.
    Aceron. Clearly, an attorney-in-fact is not a real party in interest.

    You might also like