Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Po Ejap was the owner of a titled land w/c was mortgaged to PNB in
1919
1921, Po Tecsi executed a general power of attorney in favor of his
brother Po Ejap to perform on his behalf the ff: "to buy, sell, or barter,
assign, admit in acquittance or in any other manner to acquire or
convey all sorts of property, real and personal, businesses and
industries, credits, rights, and actions belonging to me, for whatever
prices and under the conditions which he may stipulate, paying and
receiving payment in cash or in installments, and to execute the proper
instruments with the formalities provided by the law."
Po Tecsi executed a document acknowledging an indebtedness to his
brother Po Ejap of 68K, the price of the properties w/c the latter sold
to him.
Po Ejap then sold the said land with its improvements to his brother
Po Tecsi for the sum of P10,000.
of the execution of the power, but also such as he might afterwards have during
the time it was in force.
Katigbak v. Tai Hing Co. (December 29, 1928)
Under Act 496, every document which in any manner affects the registered
(Po Sun Suy and Po Ching are owners of the commercial firm Tai Hing Co.) land is ineffective unless it is recorded in the registry of deeds. But such
inefficacy only refers to third persons who, in good faith, may have acquired
FACTS: Po Ejap was the owner of a titled land w/c was mortgaged to PNB in
some right to the registered land. While it is true that a power of attorney not
1919-1921, Po Tecsi executed a general power of attorney in favor of his
recorded in the registry of deeds is ineffective in order that an agent or
brother Po Ejap to perform on his behalf the ff: "to buy, sell, or barter, assign,
attorney-in-fact may validly perform acts in the name of his principal, and that
admit in acquittance or in any other manner to acquire or convey all sorts of
any act performed by the agent by virtue of said' power with respect to the land
property, real and personal, businesses and industries, credits, rights, and
is ineffective against a third person who, in good faith, may have acquired a
actions belonging to me, for whatever prices and under the conditions which
right thereto, it does, however, bind the principal to acknowledge the acts
he may stipulate, paying and receiving payment in cash or in installments, and
performed by his attorney-in-fact regarding said property.
to execute the proper instruments with the formalities provided by the law."
In the present case, while it is true that the non-registration of the power of
Po Ejap then sold the said land with its improvements to his brother Po Tecsi
attorney executed by Po Tecsi in favor of his brother Gabino Barreto Po Ejap
for the sum of P10,000. In 1923, making use of the power conferred by his
prevents the sale made by the latter of the litigated land in favor of Jose M.
brother, Po Ejap sold absolutely said land to Katigbak. After said sale, Po Tecsi
Katigbak from being recorded in the registry of deeds, it is not ineffective to
leased the property sold, from Gabino Barreto Po Ejap, who administered it in
compel Tecsi to acknowledge said sale.
the name of Jose M. Katigbak, at a rental of P1,500 per month, payable in
advance, leaving unpaid the rents accrued from that date until his death which
occurred on November 26, 1926, having paid the accrued rents up to October
22, 1925; from November 26, 1926, the defendants Po Sun Suy and Po Ching
leased said land for the sum of P1,500 per month; on February 11, 1927, Po
Sun Suy was appointed administrator of the estate of his father Po Tecsi, and
filed with the court an inventory of said estate including the land in question;
and on May 23, 1927, Jose M. Katigbak sold the same property to Po Sun Boo,
Katigbak filed this action for the recovery of the rent. Po Sun Suy contends
that Katigbak is not the owner of the property (so not entitled to rents) because
Po Ejap was not authorized under the power executed by Po Tecsi to sell said
land, because said power had been executed before Po Ejap sold said land to
Tecsi.
ISSUES: WON Po Ejap cannot have sold the property (on behalf of Tecsi)
because the power was executed by Tecsi before Tecsi owned the property.
RULING: The power is general and authorizes Gabino Po Ejap to sell any
kind of realty "belonging" (pertenezcan) to the principal. The use of the
subjunctive "pertenezcan" (might belong) and not the indicative "pertenecen"
(belong), means that Po Tecsi meant not only the property he had at the time
property, or its proceeds, to the payment of debts owing by the principal to the
4.) PNB vs. Welch, Fairland & Co., Inc. (GR. L-19689, April 04, 1923) agent; and the circumstance that the principal assents to such application of the
property does not alter the case.
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not Welch Co. Should turnover the collected proceeds from the
insurance policy to PNB?
Held:
Yes. Welch Co. indeed acted only as agent in writing and sending the
cablegram, however, has intervened in the making of a contract in the character
of agent cannot be permitted to intercept and appropriate the thing which the
principal is bound to deliver, and thereby make performance by the principal
impossible. The agent in any event must be precluded from doing any positive
act that could prevent performance on the part of his principal. Despite the
promise held out jointly by principal and agent in the letters, the two have
conspired to make an application of the proceeds of the insurance entirely
contrary to the tenor of said letters. Under the New Civil Code, An agent who
obligates his principal to deliver specific property to a third party may not
thereafter, to the prejudice of such third party, appropriate and apply the same
favor of Albaladejo, but granted only 30% of the amount prayed for, in view
ALBALADEJO Y CIA., S. EN C. v. PHILIPPINE REFINING CO. of the fact that Albaladejos transactions in copra amounted in the past to
[PRC] only about 30% of the total business it transacted.
1923 / Street
TORRES, J.: The contract of agency can subsist only so long as the principal has confidence
in his agent, because, from the moment such confidence disappears and
FACTS: although there be a fixed period for the exercise of the office of agent, the
principal has a perfect right to revoke the power that he had conferred upon
the agent owing to the confidence he had in him and which for sound reasons
The plaintiff, Antonio M.A. Barretto, was an agent and manager of Jose Santa
had ceased to exist.
Marina, the defendant, a resident of Spain and the owner and proprietor of the
business known as the La Insular Cigar and Cigarette Factory. The petitioner
alleged that the defendant, without reason, justification, or pretext and in The fixing of the period by the Courts in their contracts cannot be invoked
violation of the contract of agency, summarily and arbitrarily dispensed with since the rights and obligations existing between Barretto and Santa Marina
the plaintiff's services and removed him from the management of the business. are absolutely different from those to which it refers, for, according to article
1732 of the Civil Code, agency is terminated:
The evidence showed that the plaintiff Barretto's renunciation or registration
of the position he held as agent and manager of the said factory was freely and 1. By revocation.
voluntarily made by him on the occasion of the insolvency and disappearance
of a Chinese man who had bought from the factory products and, without 2. By withdrawal of the agent.
paying this large debt, disappeared and has not been seen since. Barretto sent
a letter of resignation to Santa Marina and Santa Marina did not immediately 3. By death, interdiction, bankruptcy, or insolvency of the principal or
reply and tell him of his decision on the matter. After several months, Barretto of the agent.
was informed that the power conferred upon him by the defendant has been
revoked and the latter had already appointed J. McGavin to substitute him. It is not incumbent upon the courts to fix the period during which contracts for
services shall last. Their duration is understood to be implicity fixed, in default
ISSUE: of express stipulation, by the period for the payment of the salary of the
employee.
Whether the contract of agency was validly revoked.
Article 302 of the Code of Commerce reads thus:
RULING:
In cases in which no special time is fixed in the contracts of service,
Yes, the contract of agency between the plaintiff and the defendant is validy any one of the parties thereto may dissolve it, advising the other party
revoked. Barretto was not really dismissed or removed by Santa Marina. thereof one month in advance.
Rather, Barretto resigned as the defendants agent and manager as evidenced
by the letter he sent to the defendant.
The factor or shop clerk shall be entitled, in such case, to the salary
due for one month.
From the mere fact that the principal no longer had confidence in the agent, he
is entitled to withdraw it and to revoke the power he conferred upon the latter,
even before the expiration of the period of the engagement or of the agreement
made between them; but, in the present case, once it has been shown that,
between the deceased Joaquin Santa Marina and the latter's heir, now the
defendant, on the one hand, and the plaintiff Barretto, on the other, no period
whatever was stipulated during which the last-named should hold the office
and manager of the said factory, it is unquestionable that the defendant, even
without good reasons, could lawfully revoke the power conferred upon the
plaintiff and appoint in his place Mr. McGavin, and thereby contracted no
liability whatever other than the obligation to pay the plaintiff the salary
pertaining to one month and some odd days.
Lower court ruled in favor of Cunanan and Mijares and ordered Infante to
pay. CA affirmed in toto.
Infante admitted having contracted the service of Cunanan and Mijares to sell
her property but stated that she agreed to pay a commission of Php1,200 only
on condition that they buy her a property along Taft Avenue. While Cunanan
and Mijares took steps to selling her property as agreed upon, they sold the
property at Taft Avenue to another party which prompted her to cancel the
authority she gave them.
the present action for reconveyance has already prescribed. The dismissal of
the complaint is prayed for.
G.R. No. L-20449
January 29, 1968
FACTS: Pablo Fabian bought from the Philippine Government lot 164 of the
Friar Lands Estate in Muntinlupa, Rizal. By virtue of this purchase, he was
The lower court rendered judgment declaring that the defendants spouses had
issued sale certificate 547. He died on August 2, 1928, survived by four
acquired a valid and complete title to the property by acquisitive prescription,
children, namely, Esperanza, Benita I, Benita II, and Silbina.
and accordingly dismissed the complaint. The latters motion for
reconsideration was thereafter denied. Hence, the present recourse.
The acting Director of Lands, on behalf of the Government, sold lot 164 to
(2) May laches constitute a bar to an action to enforce a constructive trust?
Silbina Fabian Teodora Fabian. The vendees spouses forthwith took physical
possession thereof, cultivated it, and appropriated the produce. In that same
year, they declared the lot in their names for taxation purposes. In 1937 the (3) Has title to the land vested in the appellees through the mode of
RD of Rizal issued a TCT over lot 164 in their names. They later subdivided acquisitive prescription?
the lot into 2 equal parts.
HELD: The judgment a quo, dismissing the complaint, is affirmed
1. YES. Lot 164 was a part of the Friar Lands Estate of Muntinlupa, Rizal; its
The plaintiffs filed the present action for reconveyance against the sale to Pablo Fabian was therefore governed by Act 1120, otherwise known
defendants spouses, averring that Silbina and Teodora, as the Friar Lands Act. While under section 15 of the said Act, title to the
through fraud perpetrated in their affidavit aforesaid. That by virtue of this land sold is reserved to the Government until the purchaser makes full
affidavit, the said defendants succeeded in having the sale certificate paymentof all the required installments and the interest thereon, this
assigned to them and thereafter in having lot 164 covered by said certificate legal reservation refers to the bare, naked title. The equitable and
transferred in their names; and that by virtue also of these assignment and beneficial title really went to the purchaser the moment he paid the first
transfer, the defendants succeeded fraudulently in having lot 164 registered installment and was given a certificate of sale. The reservation of the title
in their names. They further allege that the land has not been transferred to an in favor of the Government is made merely to protect the interest of the
innocent purchaser for value. A reconveyance thereof is prayed for. Government so as to preclude or prevent the purchaser from encumbering or
disposing of the lot purchased before the payment in full of the purchase
price. Outside of this protection the Government retains no right as an
owner. For instance, after issuance of the sales certificate and pending
In their answer, the defendants spouses claim that Pablo Fabian was not the
payment in full of the purchase price, the Government may not sell the lot to
owner of lot 164 at the time of his death on August 2, 1928 because he had
another. It may not even encumber it. It may not occupy the land to use or
not paid in full the amortizations on the lot; that they are the absolute owners
cultivate; neither may it lease it or even participate or share in its fruits. In
thereof, having purchased it from the Government, and from that year having
other words, the Government does not and cannot exercise the rights and
exercised all the attributes of ownership thereof up to the present; and that
prerogatives of owner. And when said purchaser finally pays the final
installment on the purchase price and is given a deed of conveyance and a The assignment of sale certificate was effected in October 1928; and the
certificate of title, the title at least in equity, retroacts to the time he first actual transfer of lot 164 was made on the following November 14. It was
occupied the land, paid the first installment and was issued the corresponding only on July 8, 1960, 32 big years later, that the appellants for the first time
certificate of sale. In other words, pending the completion of the payment came forward with their claim to the land. The record does not reveal, and it
of the purchase price, the purchaser is entitled to all the benefits and is not seriously asserted, that the appellees concealed the facts giving rise to
advantages which may accrue to the land as well as suffer the losses that the trust. Upon the contrary, paragraph 13 of the stipulation of facts of the
may befall it. parties states with striking clarity that defendants herein have been in
That Pablo Fabian had paid five annual installments to the Government, and possession of the land in question since 1928 up to the present publicly and
in fact been issued a sale certificatein his name, are conceded. He was continuously under claim of ownership; they have cultivated it, harvested
therefore the owner of lot 164 at the time of his death. He left four daughters, and appropriated the fruits for themselves.
namely, Esperanza, Benita I, Benita II and Silbina to whom all his rights and
interest over lot 164 passed upon his demise.
3. it is already settled in this jurisdiction that an action for reconveyance of
real property based upon a constructive or implied trusts, resulting from
fraud, may be barred by the statute of limitations. the discovery in that case
being deemed to have taken place when new certificates of title were issued
In case a holder of a certificate dies before the giving of the deed and does exclusively in the names of the respondents therein.
not leave a widow, then the interest of the holder of the certificate shall
descend and deed shall issue to the person who under the laws of the
Philippine Islands would have taken had the title been perfected before the
death of the holder of the certificate, upon proof of the holders thus entitled [A]lthough, as a general rule, an action for partition among co-heirs does not
of compliance with all the requirements of the certificate. prescribe, this is true only as long as the defendants do not hold the property
2.
The assignment and sale of the lot to the defendants Silbina and Teodora in question under an adverse title. The statute of limitations operates, as in
were therefore null and void. To the extent of the participation of the other cases, from the moment such adverse title is asserted by the possessor
appellants, application must be made of the principle that if property is of the property
acquired through fraud, the person obtaining it is considered a trustee of an
implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.
Inasmuch as petitioners seek to annul the aforementioned deed of extra-
judicial settlement upon the ground of fraud in the execution thereof, the
Laches may bar an action brought to enforce a constructive trust such as the action therefor may be filed within four (4) years from the discovery of the
one in the case at bar. Illuminating are the following excerpts from a decision fraud. Upon the undisputed facts in the case at bar, not only had laches set in
penned by Mr. Justice Reyes: when the appellants instituted their action for, reconveyance in 1960, but as
well their right to enforce the constructive trust had already prescribed.
Upon the foregoing disquisition, we hold not only that the appellants action
to enforce the constructive trust created in their favor has prescribed, but as
well that a valid, full and complete title has vested in the appellees by
acquisitive prescription.
DUQUE VS DOMINGO valid must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property
donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.
Facts: The complaint alleged that plaintiff, Julia Duque, is a niece of Juana
Duque who died in 1928. Juana Duque, through her other nephew, Faustino At any rate, granting, that such an implied or constructive trust existed, the
Duque, whom she had employed as her agent, purchased from the government right of action upon the same has prescribed. From 1931 when Transfer
Lot 1083 of the Malinta Estate at Polo, Bulacan. Faustino Duque, the agent, Certificate of Title covering the land in question was issued to Mariano Duque
caused the document of purchase, to be issued by the government in his name until 1966 when the present case was commenced a period of 35 years had
with the consent of his principal, Juana Duque. On June 22, 1915, Faustino passed.
Duque transferred his Sale Certificate No. 1138 with the permission of Juana
Duque to his brother, Mariano Duque, who later received in 1931 Transfer
Certificate No. 7501 for Lot 1083 from the government; it was alleged that
since then, Juana Duque had been in the exclusive possession of Lot 1083 as
owner paying the installments stipulated in the contract to the government
through Faustino Duque and Mariano Duque or reimbursing their advances
therefor; that in 1927, Juana Duque verbally donated and delivered Lot 1083
to plaintiff Julia Duque, her niece; that from then on up to the present, the
plaintiff Julia Duque has been the exclusive and the beneficial owner thereof.
However, when Mariano Duque, the title holder, died and in 1957, his
children, Emilio Duque, Potenciana Duque, Amadeo Duque and Arsenic
Duque registered Lot 1083 in their names in the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan.
Then the plaintiff, Julia Duque, requested the defendants to reconvey to her
the title of Lot 1083 but they refused to comply with her request.
Issue: W/N there was implied trust between Juana Duque and either Faustino
Duque or Mariano Duque?
Held: No implied trust between Juana Duque and either Faustino Duque or
Mariano Duque has been established by sufficient evidence. The alleged
possession by the private respondents of the land in question did not divest the
petitioners, as registered owners, of their rights to Lot 1083. Adverse
possession under claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective
against a Torrens title. There is no adequate showing that Mariano Duque
consented in 1927 to a verbal partition made by Juana Duque wherein she gave
the property in question, Lot 1083, to Julia Duque. On the contrary, in 1931,
after full payment of the purchase price, Mariano Duque obtained in his name
Transfer Certificate of Title for Lot 1083 from the government.
The alleged oral donation by Juana Duque in favor of Julia Duque did not
transfer any right over Lot 1083 to the donee. Both under the Spanish Civil
Code and the Civil Code of the Philippines, a donation of an immovable, to be