27-30

CONSTANTE AMOR DE CASTRO and CORAZON AMOR DE CASTRO, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
and FRANCISCO ARTIGO

Facts:

Constante and Corazon De Castro were co-owners of a 4 plot of land. In a letter Francisco Artigo was
authorized to act as a real estate broker in the sale of these properties for the amount of P23,
000,000.00, five percent of which will be given to the agent as commission. Times Transit Corporation
purchased 2 plot of land and Artigo received a commission of P48, 896.76.

Artigo sued Constante and Corazon claiming that his total commission should be P352, 500 which is 5%
of the agreed price of the sale. De Castro' claims that the appellee is selfishly asking for more than what
he truly deserved as a commission.

Issue:

WON Artigo is entitled to the 5% commission.

Ruling:

Yes, a contract of agency which is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good
customs is a valid contract, and constitutes the law between the parties. The contract of agency entered
into by Constante with Artigo is the law between them and both are bound to comply with its terms and
conditions in good faith.
G.R. No. L-41182-3 April 16, 1988, DR. CARLOS L. SEVILLA and LINA O. SEVILLA, petitioners-
appellants, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, TOURIST WORLD SERVICE, INC., ELISEO S.CANILAO, and
SEGUNDINA NOGUERA, respondents-appellees, 160 scra 171

Facts:

Tourist World Service entered into a contract with Lina Sevilla, leasing a property owned by TWS to be
used as a branch office. When the branch office was opened, the same was run by appellant with an
agreement that any fare brought in on the efforts of Sevilla, 4% was to go to Her and 3% is to be
withheld by the Tourist World Service Inc.

On November 24, 1961 TWS was informed that Lina Sevilla was connected with a rival firm, thus they
closed down and padlocked the branch office. When neither Sevilla nor her employees was unable to
enter the office, they filed a complaint.

Issue:

WON Lina Sevilla is an agent of TWS and therefore entitled to damages

Ruling:

Yes, TWS and Sevilla entered into a contract of agency. It is the essence of this contract that the agent
renders services in representation or on behalf of another. In the case at bar Sevilla solicited airline
fares, on behalf of her principal. As compensation, she received 4% of the proceeds in the concept of a
commission. Their agency being coupled with interest therefore cannot be revoked at will thus Sevilla is
entitled to damages caused by the revocation of agency.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL

Facts

Private respondent entered into a contract of lease with Philippine Blooming Mills Co. The contract of
lease provides that the term of the lease is for twenty years "is extendable for another term of twenty
years at the option of the LESSEE should its term of existence be extended in accordance with law" and
state that the lessee agrees to use the property as factory site and for that purpose to construct
whatever buildings or improvements and before termination of the lease to remove all such buildings
and improvements.

On November 6, 1963 and December 23, 1963 respectively, PBM executed in favor of PNB a real estate
mortgage for a loan of P100, 000.00 and an addendum to real estate mortgage for another loan of P1,
590,000.00, covering all the improvements constructed by PBM on the leased premises. These
mortgages were registered and annotated.

On October 7, 1981 a motion was filed by private respondent, The motion sought to cancel the
annotations on respondents' certificates of title pertaining to the assignment by PBM to PNB of the
former's leasehold rights, inclusion of improvements and the real estate mortgages made by PBM in
favor of PNB, on the ground that the contract of lease entered into between PBM and respondents-
movants had already expired by the failure of PBM to extend its corporate existence.

Issue:

Won the lease already expired

Ruling:

Yes, when PBM's corporate life ended on January 19, 1977 and its 3-year period for winding up and
liquidation expired on January 19, 1980, the option of extending the lease was likewise terminated on
January 19, 1977 because PBM failed to renew or extend its corporate life in accordance with law. From
then on, the respondents can exercise their right to terminate the lease pursuant to the stipulations in
the contract.
G.R. No. 85494, May 7, 1991, CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI AND/OR NIRMLA V. RAMNANI and
MOTI G. RAMNANI, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., 196 n SCRA 731

Facts:

Ishwar, Choithram and Navalrai, all surnamed Jethmal Ramnani, are brothers of the full blood.
Ishwar and his spouse Sonya had their main business based in New York. They executed a general power
of attorney on January 24, 1966 appointing Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact, empowering
them to manage and conduct their business concern in the Philippines. They executed a general power
of attorney on January 24, 1966 appointing Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact, empowering
them to manage and conduct their business concern in the Philippines.

Sometime in 1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and expenses relative to
these properties during the period 1967 to 1970. Choithram failed and refused to render such
accounting. As a consequence, on February 4, 1971, Ishwar revoked the general power of attorney.
Choithram and Ortigas were duly notified of such revocation on April 1, 1971 and May 24, 1971,
respectively. Said notice was also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29,
19714 and was published in the April 2, 1971 issue of The Manila Times for the information of the
general public. Nevertheless, Choithram as such attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, transferred all rights and
interests of Ishwar and Sonya in favor of his daughter-in-law, Nirmla Ramnani. Thus, on October 6, 1982,
Ishwar and Sonya filed a complaint.

Issue:

WON there is a joint venture agreement

Ruling:

Yes, there is a joint venture agreement. One furnished the capital, the other contributed his industry
and talent. Justice and equity dictate that the two share equally the fruit of their joint investment and
efforts. The scenario is clear. Spouses Ishwar supplied the capital of $150,000.00 for the business. They
entrusted the money to Choithram to invest in a profitable business venture in the Philippines. For this
purpose they appointed Choithram as their attorney-in-fact.