UNILAND Resources vs DBP

Marinduque Mining Corp. obtained a loan from defendant DBP which was
secured by 2 real properties- the warehouse lot and the building lot of the former.
The petitioner, UNILAND is engaged in real estate brokerage.
Due to failure of Marinduque Mining to pay, the mortgaged properties were
foreclosed.
The warehouse lot was sold to the client of petitioner.
The building lot was sold by DBP through DBP Management Corp. where the
defendant paid 5% broker's fee.
After that sale, petitioner demanded DBP for the payment of its brokerage fee.
However, DBP denied the petitioner's claim.
petitioner contended that there was an implied agency because it was not
stopped, disauthorized, and outrightly prevented by DBP when it deals with the
sale of warehouse lot.

Issue:

WON there is an implied agency between the petitioner and defendant?

Held:

NO.

The basic axiom in Civil Law that no one may contract in the name of another
without being authorized by the latter, unless the former has by law a right to represent
him. From this principle, among others, springs the relationship of agency which, as with
other contracts, is one founded on mutual consent: the principal agrees to be bound by
the acts of the agent and the latter in turn consents to render service on behalf or in
representation of the principal.

In the course of petitioner's dealings with the DBP, it was always made clear to
petitioner that only accredited brokers may look for buyers on behalf of respondent
DBP. This is not a situation wherein a third party was prejudiced by the refusal of
respondent DBP to recognize petitioner as its broker. The controversy is only between
the DBP and petitioner, to whom it was emphasized in no uncertain terms that the
arrangement sought did not exist. Article 1869, therefore, has no room for operation in
this case.