SECOND DIVISION LAUREANO T. ANGELES, Petitioner - versus PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS (PNR) AND RODOLFO FLORES, Respondents. G.R.

. No. 150128 Promulgated: August 31, 2006 x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x D E C I S I O N GARCIA, J.: Under consideration is this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing and seeking to set aside the following issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 54062, to wit: 1. Decision[2] dated June 4, 2001, affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 79, which dismissed the complaint for specific performance and damages thereat commenced by the petitioner against the herein respondents; and 2. Resolution[3] dated September 17, 2001, denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The facts: On May 5, 1980, the respondent Philippine National Railways (PNR) informed a certain Gaudencio Romualdez (Romualdez, hereinafter) that it has accepted the latters offer to buy, on an AS IS, WHERE IS basis, the PNRs scrap/unserviceable rails located in Del Carmen and Lubao, Pampanga at P1,300.00 and P2,100.00 per metric ton, respectively, for the total amount of P96,600.00. After paying the stated purchase price, Romualdez addressed a letter to Atty. Cipriano Dizon, PNRs Acting Purchasing Agent. Bearing date May 26, 1980, the letter reads: Dear Atty. Dizon: This is to inform you as President of San Juanico Enterprises, that I have authorized the bearer, LIZETTE R. WIJANCO of No. 1606 Aragon St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, to be my lawful representative in the withdrawal of the scrap/unserviceable rails awarded to me. For this reason, I have given her the original copy of the award, dated May 5, 1980 and O.R. No. 8706855 dated May 20, 1980 which will indicate my waiver of rights, interests and participation in favor of LIZETTE R. WIJANCO. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, (Sgd.) Gaudencio Romualdez

The Lizette R. Wijanco mentioned in the letter was Lizette Wijanco- Angeles, petitioner's now deceased wife. That very same day May 26, 1980 Lizette requested the PNR to transfer the location of withdrawal for the reason that the scrap/unserviceable rails located in Del Carmen and Lubao, Pampanga were not ready for hauling. The PNR granted said request and allowed Lizette to withdraw scrap/unserviceable rails in Murcia, Capas and San Miguel, Tarlac instead. However, the PNR subsequently suspended the withdrawal in view of what it considered as documentary discrepancies coupled by reported pilferages of over P500,000.00 worth of PNR scrap properties in Tarlac. Consequently, the spouses Angeles demanded the refund of the amount of P96,000.00. The PNR, however, refused to pay, alleging that as per delivery receipt duly signed by Lizette, 54.658 metric tons of unserviceable rails had already been withdrawn which, at P2,100.00 per metric ton, were worth P114,781.80, an amount that exceeds the claim for refund. On August 10, 1988, the spouses Angeles filed suit against the PNR and its corporate secretary, Rodolfo Flores, among others, for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. In it, they prayed that PNR be directed to deliver 46 metric tons of scrap/unserviceable rails and to pay them damages and attorney's fees. Issues having been joined following the filing by PNR, et al., of their answer, trial ensued. Meanwhile, Lizette W. Angeles passed away and was substituted by her heirs, among whom is her husband, herein petitioner Laureno T. Angeles. On April 16, 1996, the trial court, on the postulate that the spouses Angeles are not the real parties-in-interest, rendered judgment dismissing their complaint for lack of cause of action. As held by the court, Lizette was merely a representative of Romualdez in the withdrawal of scrap or unserviceable rails awarded to him and not an assignee to the latter's rights with respect to the award. Aggrieved, the petitioner interposed an appeal with the CA, which, as stated at the threshold hereof, in its decision of June 4, 2001, dismissed the appeal and affirmed that of the trial court. The affirmatory decision was reiterated by the CA in its resolution of September 17, 2001, denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration. Hence, the petitioners present recourse on the submission that the CA erred in affirming the trial court's holding that petitioner and his spouse, as plaintiffs a quo, had no cause of action as they were not the real parties-in-interest in this case.

We DENY the petition. At the crux of the issue is the matter of how the aforequoted May 26, 1980 letter of Romualdez to Atty. Dizon of the PNR should be taken: was it meant to designate, or has it the effect of designating, Lizette W. Angeles as a mere agent or as an assignee of his (Romualdez's) interest in the scrap rails awarded to San Juanico Enterprises? The CAs conclusion, affirmatory of that of the trial court, is that Lizette was not an assignee, but merely an agent whose authority was limited to the withdrawal of the scrap rails, hence, without personality to sue. Where agency exists, the third party's (in this case, PNR's) liability on a contract is to the principal and not to the agent and the relationship of the third party to the principal is the same as that in a contract in which there is no agent. Normally, the agent has neither rights nor liabilities as against the third party. He cannot thus sue or be sued on the contract. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto as against each other, the real party-in-interest, either as plaintiff or defendant in an action upon that contract must, generally, be a contracting party. The legal situation is, however, different where an agent is constituted as an assignee. In such a case, the agent may, in his own behalf, sue on a contract made for his principal, as an assignee of such contract. The rule requiring every action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest recognizes the assignment of rights of action and also recognizes that when one has a right assigned to him, he is then the real party-in-interest and may maintain an action upon such claim or right.[4] Upon scrutiny of the subject Romualdez's letter to Atty. Cipriano Dizon dated May 26, 1980, it is at once apparent that Lizette was to act just as a representative of Romualdez in the withdrawal of rails, and not an assignee. For perspective, we reproduce the contents of said letter: This is to inform you as President of San Juanico Enterprises, that I have authorized the bearer, LIZETTE R. WIJANCO x x x to be my lawful representative in the withdrawal of the scrap/unserviceable rails awarded to me. For this reason, I have given her the original copy of the award, dated May 5, 1980 and O.R. No. 8706855 dated May 20, 1980 which will indicate my waiver of rights, interests and participation in favor of LIZETTE R. WIJANCO. (Emphasis added) If Lizette was without legal standing to sue and appear in this case, there is more reason to hold that her petitioner husband, either as her conjugal partner or her heir, is also without such standing.

Petitioner makes much of the fact that the terms agent or attorney-in-fact were not used in the Romualdez letter aforestated. It bears to stress, however, that the words principal and agent, are not the only terms used to designate the parties in an agency relation. The agent may also be called an attorney, proxy, delegate or, as here, representative. It cannot be over emphasized that Romualdez's use of the active verb authorized, instead of assigned, indicated an intent on his part to keep and retain his interest in the subject matter. Stated a bit differently, he intended to limit Lizettes role in the scrap transaction to being the representative of his interest therein. Petitioner submits that the second paragraph of the Romualdez letter, stating I have given [Lizette] the original copy of the award x x x which will indicate my waiver of rights, interests and participation in favor of Lizette R. Wijanco - clarifies that Lizette was intended to be an assignee, and not a mere agent. We are not persuaded. As it were, the petitioner conveniently omitted an important phrase preceding the paragraph which would have put the whole matter in context. The phrase is For this reason, and the antecedent thereof is his (Romualdez) having appointed Lizette as his representative in the matter of the withdrawal of the scrap items. In fine, the key phrase clearly conveys the idea that Lizette was given the original copy of the contract award to enable her to withdraw the rails as Romualdezs authorized representative. Article 1374 of the Civil Code provides that the various stipulations of a contract shall be read and interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly. In fine, the real intention of the parties is primarily to be determined from the language used and gathered from the whole instrument. When put into the context of the letter as a whole, it is abundantly clear that the rights which Romualdez waived or ceded in favor of Lizette were those in furtherance of the agency relation that he had established for the withdrawal of the rails. At any rate, any doubt as to the intent of Romualdez generated by the way his letter was couched could be clarified by the acts of the main players themselves. Article 1371 of the Civil Code provides that to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. In other words, in case of doubt, resort may be made to the situation, surroundings, and relations of the parties. The fact of agency was, as the trial court aptly observed,[5] confirmed in subsequent letters from the Angeles spouses in which they themselves refer to Lizette as authorized representative of San Juanico Enterprises. Mention may also be made that the withdrawal receipt which Lizette had signed indicated that she was doing so in a representative capacity. One professing to act as agent for another is

estopped to deny his agency both as against his asserted principal and third persons interested in the transaction which he engaged in. Whether or not an agency has been created is a question to be determined by the fact that one represents and is acting for another. The appellate court, and before it, the trial court, had peremptorily determined that Lizette, with respect to the withdrawal of the scrap in question, was acting for Romualdez. And with the view we take of this case, there were substantial pieces of evidence adduced to support this determination. The desired reversal urged by the petitioner cannot, accordingly, be granted. For, factual findings of the trial court, adopted and confirmed by the CA, are, as a rule, final and conclusive and may not be disturbed on appeal.[6] So it must be here. Petitioner maintains that the Romualdez letter in question was not in the form of a special power of attorney, implying that the latter had not intended to merely authorize his wife, Lizette, to perform an act for him (Romualdez). The contention is specious. In the absence of statute, no form or method of execution is required for a valid power of attorney; it may be in any form clearly showing on its face the agents authority.[7] A power of attorney is only but an instrument in writing by which a person, as principal, appoints another as his agent and confers upon him the authority to perform certain specified acts on behalf of the principal. The written authorization itself is the power of attorney, and this is clearly indicated by the fact that it has also been called a letter of attorney. Its primary purpose is not to define the authority of the agent as between himself and his principal but to evidence the authority of the agent to third parties with whom the agent deals.[8] The letter under consideration is sufficient to constitute a power of attorney. Except as may be required by statute, a power of attorney is valid although no notary public intervened in its execution.[9] A power of attorney must be strictly construed and pursued. The instrument will be held to grant only those powers which are specified therein, and the agent may neither go beyond nor deviate from the power of attorney.[10] Contextually, all that Lizette was authorized to do was to withdraw the unserviceable/scrap railings. Allowing her authority to sue therefor, especially in her own name, would be to read something not intended, let alone written in the Romualdez letter. Finally, the petitioner's claim that Lizette paid the amount of P96,000.00 to the PNR appears to be a mere afterthought; it ought to be dismissed outright under the estoppel principle. In earlier proceedings, petitioner himself admitted in his complaint that it was Romualdez who paid this amount. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of the CA is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.

G.R. No. 144805 June 8, 2006 EDUARDO V. LINTONJUA, JR. and ANTONIO K. LITONJUA, Petitioners, vs. ETERNIT CORPORATION (now ETERTON MULTI-RESOURCES CORPORATION), ETEROUTREMER, S.A. and FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Respondents. D E C I S I O N CALLEJO, SR., J.: On appeal via a Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 51022, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 165, in Civil Case No. 54887, as well as the Resolution2 of the CA denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The Eternit Corporation (EC) is a corporation duly organized and registered under Philippine laws. Since 1950, it had been engaged in the manufacture of roofing materials and pipe products. Its manufacturing operations were conducted on eight parcels of land with a total area of 47,233 square meters. The properties, located in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, were covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 451117, 451118, 451119, 451120, 451121, 451122, 451124 and 451125 under the name of Far East Bank & Trust Company, as trustee. Ninety (90%) percent of the shares of stocks of EC were owned by Eteroutremer S.A. Corporation (ESAC), a corporation organized and registered under the laws of Belgium.3 Jack Glanville, an Australian citizen, was the General Manager and President of EC, while Claude Frederick Delsaux was the Regional Director for Asia of ESAC. Both had their offices in Belgium. In 1986, the management of ESAC grew concerned about the political situation in the Philippines and wanted to stop its operations in the country. The Committee for Asia of ESAC instructed Michael Adams, a member of ECs Board of Directors, to dispose of the eight parcels of land. Adams engaged the services of realtor/broker Lauro G. Marquez so that the properties could be offered for sale to prospective buyers. Glanville later showed the properties to Marquez. Marquez thereafter offered the parcels of land and the improvements thereon to Eduardo B. Litonjua, Jr. of the Litonjua & Company, Inc. In a Letter dated September 12, 1986, Marquez declared that he was authorized to sell the properties for P27,000,000.00 and that the terms of the sale were subject to negotiation.4 Eduardo Litonjua, Jr. responded to the offer. Marquez showed the property to Eduardo Litonjua, Jr., and his brother Antonio K. Litonjua. The Litonjua siblings offered to buy the property for P20,000,000.00 cash. Marquez apprised Glanville of the Litonjua siblings offer and relayed the same to Delsaux in Belgium, but the latter did not respond. On October 28, 1986, Glanville telexed Delsaux in Belgium, inquiring on his position/ counterproposal to the offer of the Litonjua siblings. It was only on February 12, 1987 that Delsaux sent a telex to Glanville stating that, based

on the "Belgian/Swiss decision," the final offer was "US$1,000,000.00 and P2,500,000.00 to cover all existing obligations prior to final liquidation."5 Marquez furnished Eduardo Litonjua, Jr. with a copy of the telex sent by Delsaux. Litonjua, Jr. accepted the counterproposal of Delsaux. Marquez conferred with Glanville, and in a Letter dated February 26, 1987, confirmed that the Litonjua siblings had accepted the counter-proposal of Delsaux. He also stated that the Litonjua siblings would confirm full payment within 90 days after execution and preparation of all documents of sale, together with the necessary governmental clearances.6 The Litonjua brothers deposited the amount of US$1,000,000.00 with the Security Bank & Trust Company, Ermita Branch, and drafted an Escrow Agreement to expedite the sale.7 Sometime later, Marquez and the Litonjua brothers inquired from Glanville when the sale would be implemented. In a telex dated April 22, 1987, Glanville informed Delsaux that he had met with the buyer, which had given him the impression that "he is prepared to press for a satisfactory conclusion to the sale."8 He also emphasized to Delsaux that the buyers were concerned because they would incur expenses in bank commitment fees as a consequence of prolonged period of inaction.9 Meanwhile, with the assumption of Corazon C. Aquino as President of the Republic of the Philippines, the political situation in the Philippines had improved. Marquez received a telephone call from Glanville, advising that the sale would no longer proceed. Glanville followed it up with a Letter dated May 7, 1987, confirming that he had been instructed by his principal to inform Marquez that "the decision has been taken at a Board Meeting not to sell the properties on which Eternit Corporation is situated."10 Delsaux himself later sent a letter dated May 22, 1987, confirming that the ESAC Regional Office had decided not to proceed with the sale of the subject land, to wit: May 22, 1987 Mr. L.G. Marquez L.G. Marquez, Inc. 334 Makati Stock Exchange Bldg. 6767 Ayala Avenue Makati, Metro Manila Philippines Dear Sir: Re: Land of Eternit Corporation

I would like to confirm officially that our Group has decided not to proceed with the sale of the land which was proposed to you. The Committee for Asia of our Group met recently (meeting every six months) and examined the position as far as the Philippines are (sic) concerned. Considering [the] new political situation since the departure of MR. MARCOS and a certain stabilization in the Philippines, the Committee has decided not to stop our operations in Manila. In fact, production has started again last week, and (sic) to recognize the participation in the Corporation. We regret that we could not make a deal with you this time, but in case the policy would change at a later state, we would consult you again. xxx Yours sincerely, (Sgd.) C.F. DELSAUX cc. To: J. GLANVILLE (Eternit Corp.)11 When apprised of this development, the Litonjuas, through counsel, wrote EC, demanding payment for damages they had suffered on account of the aborted sale. EC, however, rejected their demand. The Litonjuas then filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against EC (now the Eterton Multi-Resources Corporation) and the Far East Bank & Trust Company, and ESAC in the RTC of Pasig City. An amended complaint was filed, in which defendant EC was substituted by Eterton Multi-Resources Corporation; Benito C. Tan, Ruperto V. Tan, Stock Ha T. Tan and Deogracias G. Eufemio were impleaded as additional defendants on account of their purchase of ESAC shares of stocks and were the controlling stockholders of EC. In their answer to the complaint, EC and ESAC alleged that since Eteroutremer was not doing business in the Philippines, it cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts; the Board and stockholders of EC never approved any resolution to sell subject properties nor authorized Marquez to sell the same; and the telex dated October 28, 1986 of Jack Glanville was his own personal making which did not bind EC. On July 3, 1995, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the amended complaint.12 The fallo of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the complaint against Eternit Corporation now Eterton MultiResources Corporation and Eteroutremer, S.A. is dismissed on the ground that there is no valid and binding sale between the plaintiffs and said defendants. The complaint as against Far East Bank and Trust Company is likewise dismissed for lack of cause of action. The counterclaim of Eternit Corporation now Eterton Multi-Resources Corporation and Eteroutremer, S.A. is also dismissed for lack of merit.13 The trial court declared that since the authority of the agents/realtors was not in writing, the sale is void and not merely unenforceable, and as such, could not have been ratified by the principal. In any event, such ratification cannot be given any retroactive effect. Plaintiffs could not assume that defendants had agreed to sell the property without a clear authorization from the corporation concerned, that is, through resolutions of the Board of Directors and stockholders. The trial court also pointed out that the supposed sale involves substantially all the assets of defendant EC which would result in the eventual total cessation of its operation.14 The Litonjuas appealed the decision to the CA, alleging that "(1) the lower court erred in concluding that the real estate broker in the instant case needed a written authority from appellee corporation and/or that said broker had no such written authority; and (2) the lower court committed grave error of law in holding that appellee corporation is not legally bound for specific performance and/or damages in the absence of an enabling resolution of the board of directors."15 They averred that Marquez acted merely as a broker or go-between and not as agent of the corporation; hence, it was not necessary for him to be empowered as such by any written authority. They further claimed that an agency by estoppel was created when the corporation clothed Marquez with apparent authority to negotiate for the sale of the properties. However, since it was a bilateral contract to buy and sell, it was equivalent to a perfected contract of sale, which the corporation was obliged to consummate. In reply, EC alleged that Marquez had no written authority from the Board of Directors to bind it; neither were Glanville and Delsaux authorized by its board of directors to offer the property for sale. Since the sale involved substantially all of the corporations assets, it would necessarily need the authority from the stockholders. On June 16, 2000, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the RTC. 16 The Litonjuas filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied by the appellate court. The CA ruled that Marquez, who was a real estate broker, was a special agent within the purview of Article 1874 of the New Civil Code. Under Section 23 of the Corporation Code, he needed a special authority from ECs board of directors to bind such corporation to the sale of its properties. Delsaux, who was merely the

representative of ESAC (the majority stockholder of EC) had no authority to bind the latter. The CA pointed out that Delsaux was not even a member of the board of directors of EC. Moreover, the Litonjuas failed to prove that an agency by estoppel had been created between the parties. In the instant petition for review, petitioners aver that I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE. II THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT MARQUEZ NEEDED A WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM RESPONDENT ETERNIT BEFORE THE SALE CAN BE PERFECTED. III THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT GLANVILLE AND DELSAUX HAVE THE NECESSARY AUTHORITY TO SELL THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, WERE KNOWINGLY PERMITTED BY RESPONDENT ETERNIT TO DO ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AN APPARENT AUTHORITY, AND THUS HELD THEM OUT TO THE PUBLIC AS POSSESSING POWER TO SELL THE SAID PROPERTIES.17 Petitioners maintain that, based on the facts of the case, there was a perfected contract of sale of the parcels of land and the improvements thereon for "US$1,000,000.00 plus P2,500,000.00 to cover obligations prior to final liquidation." Petitioners insist that they had accepted the counter-offer of respondent EC and that before the counter-offer was withdrawn by respondents, the acceptance was made known to them through real estate broker Marquez. Petitioners assert that there was no need for a written authority from the Board of Directors of EC for Marquez to validly act as broker/middleman/intermediary. As broker, Marquez was not an ordinary agent because his authority was of a special and limited character in most respects. His only job as a broker was to look for a buyer and to bring together the parties to the transaction. He was not authorized to sell the properties or to make a binding contract to respondent EC; hence, petitioners argue, Article 1874 of the New Civil Code does not apply. In any event, petitioners aver, what is important and decisive was that Marquez was able to communicate both the offer and counter-offer and their acceptance of respondent ECs counter-offer, resulting in a perfected contract of sale. Petitioners posit that the testimonial and documentary evidence on record amply shows that Glanville, who was the President and General Manager of respondent EC, and Delsaux, who was the Managing Director for ESAC Asia, had the necessary authority to sell the subject property or, at least, had been allowed by respondent EC to hold themselves out in the public as having the power to sell the subject properties. Petitioners identified such evidence, thus:

1.

The testimony of Marquez that he was chosen by Glanville as the then President and General Manager of Eternit, to sell the properties of said corporation to any interested party, which authority, as hereinabove discussed, need not be in writing.

2. 2. The fact that the NEGOTIATIONS for the sale of the subject properties spanned SEVERAL MONTHS, from 1986 to 1987; 3. The COUNTER-OFFER made by Eternit through GLANVILLE to sell its properties to the Petitioners; 4. The GOOD FAITH of Petitioners in believing Eternits offer to sell the properties as evidenced by the Petitioners ACCEPTANCE of the counter-offer; 5. The fact that Petitioners DEPOSITED the price of [US]$1,000,000.00 with the Security Bank and that an ESCROW agreement was drafted over the subject properties; 6. Glanvilles telex to Delsaux inquiring "WHEN WE (Respondents) WILL IMPLEMENT ACTION TO BUY AND SELL"; 7. More importantly, Exhibits "G" and "H" of the Respondents, which evidenced the fact that Petitioners offer was allegedly REJECTED by both Glanville and Delsaux.18 Petitioners insist that it is incongruous for Glanville and Delsaux to make a counteroffer to petitioners offer and thereafter reject such offer unless they were authorized to do so by respondent EC. Petitioners insist that Delsaux confirmed his authority to sell the properties in his letter to Marquez, to wit: Dear Sir, Re: Land of Eternit Corporation I would like to confirm officially that our Group has decided not to proceed with the sale of the land which was proposed to you. The Committee for Asia of our Group met recently (meeting every six months) and examined the position as far as the Philippines are (sic) concerned. Considering the new political situation since the departure of MR. MARCOS and a certain stabilization in the Philippines, the Committee has decided not to stop our operations in Manila[.] [I]n fact production started again last week, and (sic) to reorganize the participation in the Corporation.

We regret that we could not make a deal with you this time, but in case the policy would change at a later stage we would consult you again. In the meantime, I remain Yours sincerely, C.F. DELSAUX19 Petitioners further emphasize that they acted in good faith when Glanville and Delsaux were knowingly permitted by respondent EC to sell the properties within the scope of an apparent authority. Petitioners insist that respondents held themselves to the public as possessing power to sell the subject properties. By way of comment, respondents aver that the issues raised by the petitioners are factual, hence, are proscribed by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. On the merits of the petition, respondents EC (now EMC) and ESAC reiterate their submissions in the CA. They maintain that Glanville, Delsaux and Marquez had no authority from the stockholders of respondent EC and its Board of Directors to offer the properties for sale to the petitioners, or to any other person or entity for that matter. They assert that the decision and resolution of the CA are in accord with law and the evidence on record, and should be affirmed in toto. Petitioners aver in their subsequent pleadings that respondent EC, through Glanville and Delsaux, conformed to the written authority of Marquez to sell the properties. The authority of Glanville and Delsaux to bind respondent EC is evidenced by the fact that Glanville and Delsaux negotiated for the sale of 90% of stocks of respondent EC to Ruperto Tan on June 1, 1997. Given the significance of their positions and their duties in respondent EC at the time of the transaction, and the fact that respondent ESAC owns 90% of the shares of stock of respondent EC, a formal resolution of the Board of Directors would be a mere ceremonial formality. What is important, petitioners maintain, is that Marquez was able to communicate the offer of respondent EC and the petitioners acceptance thereof. There was no time that they acted without the knowledge of respondents. In fact, respondent EC never repudiated the acts of Glanville, Marquez and Delsaux. The petition has no merit. Anent the first issue, we agree with the contention of respondents that the issues raised by petitioner in this case are factual. Whether or not Marquez, Glanville, and Delsaux were authorized by respondent EC to act as its agents relative to the sale of the properties of respondent EC, and if so, the boundaries of their authority as agents, is a question of fact. In the absence of express written terms creating the relationship of an agency, the existence of an agency is a fact question.20 Whether an agency by estoppel was created or whether a person acted within the bounds of his apparent authority, and whether the principal is estopped to deny the apparent authority of its

agent are, likewise, questions of fact to be resolved on the basis of the evidence on record.21 The findings of the trial court on such issues, as affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on the Court, absent evidence that the trial and appellate courts ignored, misconstrued, or misapplied facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.22 It must be stressed that issues of facts may not be raised in the Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because the Court is not a trier of facts. It is not to re-examine and assess the evidence on record, whether testimonial and documentary. There are, however, recognized exceptions where the Court may delve into and resolve factual issues, namely: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.23 We have reviewed the records thoroughly and find that the petitioners failed to establish that the instant case falls under any of the foregoing exceptions. Indeed, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is supported by the evidence on record and the law. It was the duty of the petitioners to prove that respondent EC had decided to sell its properties and that it had empowered Adams, Glanville and Delsaux or Marquez to offer the properties for sale to prospective buyers and to accept any counter-offer. Petitioners likewise failed to prove that their counter-offer had been accepted by respondent EC, through Glanville and Delsaux. It must be stressed that when specific performance is sought of a contract made with an agent, the agency must be established by clear, certain and specific proof.24 Section 23 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 68, otherwise known as the Corporation Code of the Philippines, provides: SEC. 23. The Board of Directors or Trustees. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the corporate powers of all corporations formed under this Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled and held by the board of directors or trustees to be elected from among the holders of

stocks, or where there is no stock, from among the members of the corporation, who shall hold office for one (1) year and until their successors are elected and qualified. Indeed, a corporation is a juridical person separate and distinct from its members or stockholders and is not affected by the personal rights, obligations and transactions of the latter.25 It may act only through its board of directors or, when authorized either by its by-laws or by its board resolution, through its officers or agents in the normal course of business. The general principles of agency govern the relation between the corporation and its officers or agents, subject to the articles of incorporation, by-laws, or relevant provisions of law.26 Under Section 36 of the Corporation Code, a corporation may sell or convey its real properties, subject to the limitations prescribed by law and the Constitution, as follows: SEC. 36. Corporate powers and capacity. Every corporation incorporated under this Code has the power and capacity: xxxx 7. To purchase, receive, take or grant, hold, convey, sell, lease, pledge, mortgage and otherwise deal with such real and personal property, including securities and bonds of other corporations, as the transaction of a lawful business of the corporation may reasonably and necessarily require, subject to the limitations prescribed by the law and the Constitution. The property of a corporation, however, is not the property of the stockholders or members, and as such, may not be sold without express authority from the board of directors.27 Physical acts, like the offering of the properties of the corporation for sale, or the acceptance of a counter-offer of prospective buyers of such properties and the execution of the deed of sale covering such property, can be performed by the corporation only by officers or agents duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by specific acts of the board of directors.28 Absent such valid delegation/authorization, the rule is that the declarations of an individual director relating to the affairs of the corporation, but not in the course of, or connected with, the performance of authorized duties of such director, are not binding on the corporation.29 While a corporation may appoint agents to negotiate for the sale of its real properties, the final say will have to be with the board of directors through its officers and agents as authorized by a board resolution or by its by-laws.30 An unauthorized act of an officer of the corporation is not binding on it unless the latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly by its board of directors. Any sale of real property of a corporation by a person purporting to be an agent thereof but without written

authority from the corporation is null and void. The declarations of the agent alone are generally insufficient to establish the fact or extent of his/her authority.31 By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.32 Consent of both principal and agent is necessary to create an agency. The principal must intend that the agent shall act for him; the agent must intend to accept the authority and act on it, and the intention of the parties must find expression either in words or conduct between them.33 An agency may be expressed or implied from the act of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority. Acceptance by the agent may be expressed, or implied from his acts which carry out the agency, or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances.34 Agency may be oral unless the law requires a specific form.35 However, to create or convey real rights over immovable property, a special power of attorney is necessary.36 Thus, when a sale of a piece of land or any portion thereof is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing, otherwise, the sale shall be void.37 In this case, the petitioners as plaintiffs below, failed to adduce in evidence any resolution of the Board of Directors of respondent EC empowering Marquez, Glanville or Delsaux as its agents, to sell, let alone offer for sale, for and in its behalf, the eight parcels of land owned by respondent EC including the improvements thereon. The bare fact that Delsaux may have been authorized to sell to Ruperto Tan the shares of stock of respondent ESAC, on June 1, 1997, cannot be used as basis for petitioners claim that he had likewise been authorized by respondent EC to sell the parcels of land. Moreover, the evidence of petitioners shows that Adams and Glanville acted on the authority of Delsaux, who, in turn, acted on the authority of respondent ESAC, through its Committee for Asia,38 the Board of Directors of respondent ESAC,39 and the Belgian/Swiss component of the management of respondent ESAC.40 As such, Adams and Glanville engaged the services of Marquez to offer to sell the properties to prospective buyers. Thus, on September 12, 1986, Marquez wrote the petitioner that he was authorized to offer for sale the property for P27,000,000.00 and the other terms of the sale subject to negotiations. When petitioners offered to purchase the property for P20,000,000.00, through Marquez, the latter relayed petitioners offer to Glanville; Glanville had to send a telex to Delsaux to inquire the position of respondent ESAC to petitioners offer. However, as admitted by petitioners in their Memorandum, Delsaux was unable to reply immediately to the telex of Glanville because Delsaux had to wait for confirmation from respondent ESAC.41 When Delsaux finally responded to Glanville on February 12, 1987, he made it clear that, based on the "Belgian/Swiss decision" the final offer of respondent ESAC was US$1,000,000.00 plus P2,500,000.00 to cover all existing obligations prior to final liquidation.42 The offer of Delsaux emanated only from the

"Belgian/Swiss decision," and not the entire management or Board of Directors of respondent ESAC. While it is true that petitioners accepted the counter-offer of respondent ESAC, respondent EC was not a party to the transaction between them; hence, EC was not bound by such acceptance. While Glanville was the President and General Manager of respondent EC, and Adams and Delsaux were members of its Board of Directors, the three acted for and in behalf of respondent ESAC, and not as duly authorized agents of respondent EC; a board resolution evincing the grant of such authority is needed to bind EC to any agreement regarding the sale of the subject properties. Such board resolution is not a mere formality but is a condition sine qua non to bind respondent EC. Admittedly, respondent ESAC owned 90% of the shares of stocks of respondent EC; however, the mere fact that a corporation owns a majority of the shares of stocks of another, or even all of such shares of stocks, taken alone, will not justify their being treated as one corporation.43 It bears stressing that in an agent-principal relationship, the personality of the principal is extended through the facility of the agent. In so doing, the agent, by legal fiction, becomes the principal, authorized to perform all acts which the latter would have him do. Such a relationship can only be effected with the consent of the principal, which must not, in any way, be compelled by law or by any court.44 The petitioners cannot feign ignorance of the absence of any regular and valid authority of respondent EC empowering Adams, Glanville or Delsaux to offer the properties for sale and to sell the said properties to the petitioners. A person dealing with a known agent is not authorized, under any circumstances, blindly to trust the agents; statements as to the extent of his powers; such person must not act negligently but must use reasonable diligence and prudence to ascertain whether the agent acts within the scope of his authority.45 The settled rule is that, persons dealing with an assumed agent are bound at their peril, and if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to prove it.46 In this case, the petitioners failed to discharge their burden; hence, petitioners are not entitled to damages from respondent EC. It appears that Marquez acted not only as real estate broker for the petitioners but also as their agent. As gleaned from the letter of Marquez to Glanville, on February 26, 1987, he confirmed, for and in behalf of the petitioners, that the latter had accepted such offer to sell the land and the improvements thereon. However, we agree with the ruling of the appellate court that Marquez had no authority to bind respondent EC to sell the subject properties. A real estate broker is one who negotiates the sale of real properties. His business, generally speaking, is only to find a purchaser who is willing to buy the land upon terms fixed by the owner. He has no authority to bind the principal by signing a contract of sale. Indeed, an authority to find a purchaser of real property does not include an authority to sell.47

Equally barren of merit is petitioners contention that respondent EC is estopped to deny the existence of a principal-agency relationship between it and Glanville or Delsaux. For an agency by estoppel to exist, the following must be established: (1) the principal manifested a representation of the agents authority or knowlingly allowed the agent to assume such authority; (2) the third person, in good faith, relied upon such representation; (3) relying upon such representation, such third person has changed his position to his detriment.48 An agency by estoppel, which is similar to the doctrine of apparent authority, requires proof of reliance upon the representations, and that, in turn, needs proof that the representations predated the action taken in reliance.49 Such proof is lacking in this case. In their communications to the petitioners, Glanville and Delsaux positively and unequivocally declared that they were acting for and in behalf of respondent ESAC. Neither may respondent EC be deemed to have ratified the transactions between the petitioners and respondent ESAC, through Glanville, Delsaux and Marquez. The transactions and the various communications inter se were never submitted to the Board of Directors of respondent EC for ratification. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION Jocelyn B. Doles, G.R. No. 149353 Petitioner, - versus Ma. Aura Tina Angeles, Promulgated: Respondent. June 26, 2006 x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x D E C I S I O N AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: This refers to the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court questioning the Decision[1] dated April 30, 2001 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 66985, which reversed the Decision dated July 29, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, City of Manila; and the CA Resolution[2] dated August 6, 2001 which denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The antecedents of the case follow: On April 1, 1997, Ma. Aura Tina Angeles (respondent) filed with the RTC a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against Jocelyn B. Doles (petitioner), docketed as Civil Case No. 97-82716. Respondent alleged that petitioner was indebted to the former in the concept of a personal loan amounting to P405,430.00 representing the principal amount and interest; that on October 5, 1996, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale,[3] petitioner, as seller, ceded to respondent, as buyer, a parcel of land, as well as the improvements thereon, with an area of 42 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 382532,[4] and located at a subdivision project known as Camella Townhomes Sorrente in Bacoor, Cavite, in order to satisfy her personal loan with respondent; that this property was mortgaged to National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) to secure petitioners loan in the sum of P337,050.00 with that entity; that as a condition for the foregoing sale, respondent shall assume the undue balance of the mortgage and pay the monthly amortization of P4,748.11 for the remainder of the 25 years which began on September 3, 1994; that the property was at that time being occupied by a tenant paying a monthly rent of P3,000.00; that upon verification with the NHMFC, respondent learned that petitioner had incurred arrearages amounting to P26,744.09, inclusive of penalties and interest; that upon informing the petitioner of her arrears, petitioner denied that she incurred them and refused to pay the same; that despite repeated demand, petitioner refused to cooperate with respondent to execute the necessary documents and other formalities required by the NHMFC to effect the transfer of the title over the property; that petitioner collected rent over the property for the month of January 1997 and refused to remit the proceeds to respondent; and that respondent suffered damages as a result and was forced to litigate. Petitioner, then defendant, while admitting some allegations in the Complaint, denied that she borrowed money from respondent, and averred that from June to September 1995, she referred her friends to respondent whom she knew to be engaged in the business of lending money in exchange for personal checks through her capitalist Arsenio Pua. She alleged that her friends, namely, Zenaida Romulo, Theresa

Moratin, Julia Inocencio, Virginia Jacob, and Elizabeth Tomelden, borrowed money from respondent and issued personal checks in payment of the loan; that the checks bounced for insufficiency of funds; that despite her efforts to assist respondent to collect from the borrowers, she could no longer locate them; that, because of this, respondent became furious and threatened petitioner that if the accounts were not settled, a criminal case will be filed against her; that she was forced to issue eight checks amounting to P350,000 to answer for the bounced checks of the borrowers she referred; that prior to the issuance of the checks she informed respondent that they were not sufficiently funded but the latter nonetheless deposited the checks and for which reason they were subsequently dishonored; that respondent then threatened to initiate a criminal case against her for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22; that she was forced by respondent to execute an Absolute Deed of Sale over her property in Bacoor, Cavite, to avoid criminal prosecution; that the said deed had no valid consideration; that she did not appear before a notary public; that the Community Tax Certificate number on the deed was not hers and for which respondent may be prosecuted for falsification and perjury; and that she suffered damages and lost rental as a result. The RTC identified the issues as follows: first, whether the Deed of Absolute Sale is valid; second; if valid, whether petitioner is obliged to sign and execute the necessary documents to effect the transfer of her rights over the property to the respondent; and third, whether petitioner is liable for damages. On July 29, 1998, the RTC rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby orders the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. With costs against plaintiff. SO ORDERED. The RTC held that the sale was void for lack of cause or consideration:[5] Plaintiff Angeles admission that the borrowers are the friends of defendant Doles and further admission that the checks issued by these borrowers in payment of the loan obligation negates [sic] the cause or consideration of the contract of sale executed by and between plaintiff and defendant. Moreover, the property is not solely owned by defendant as appearing in Entry No. 9055 of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 382532 (Annex A, Complaint), thus: Entry No. 9055. Special Power of Attorney in favor of Jocelyn Doles covering the share of Teodorico Doles on the parcel of land described in this certificate of title by virtue of the special power of attorney to mortgage, executed before the notary public, etc. The rule under the Civil Code is that contracts without a cause or consideration produce no effect whatsoever. (Art. 1352, Civil Code).

Respondent appealed to the CA. In her appeal brief, respondent interposed her sole assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE AT BAR ON THE GROUND OF [sic] THE DEED OF SALE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HAS NO CONSIDERATION OR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.[6] On April 30, 2001, the CA promulgated its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the lower court dated July 29, 1998 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new one is entered ordering defendant-appellee to execute all necessary documents to effect transfer of subject property to plaintiff-appellant with the arrearages of the formers loan with the NHMFC, at the latters expense. No costs. SO ORDERED. The CA concluded that petitioner was the borrower and, in turn, would relend the amount borrowed from the respondent to her friends. Hence, the Deed of Absolute Sale was supported by a valid consideration, which is the sum of money petitioner owed respondent amounting to P405,430.00, representing both principal and interest. The CA took into account the following circumstances in their entirety: the supposed friends of petitioner never presented themselves to respondent and that all transactions were made by and between petitioner and respondent;[7] that the money borrowed was deposited with the bank account of the petitioner, while payments made for the loan were deposited by the latter to respondents bank account;[8] that petitioner herself admitted in open court that she was re-lending the money loaned from respondent to other individuals for profit;[9] and that the documentary evidence shows that the actual borrowers, the friends of petitioner, consider her as their creditor and not the respondent.[10] Furthermore, the CA held that the alleged threat or intimidation by respondent did not vitiate consent, since the same is considered just or legal if made to enforce ones claim through competent authority under Article 1335[11] of the Civil Code;[12] that with respect to the arrearages of petitioner on her monthly amortization with the NHMFC in the sum of P26,744.09, the same shall be deemed part of the balance of petitioners loan with the NHMFC which respondent agreed to assume; and that the amount of P3,000.00 representing the rental for January 1997 supposedly collected by petitioner, as well as the claim for damages and attorneys fees, is denied for insufficiency of evidence.[13] On May 29, 2001, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration with the CA, arguing that respondent categorically admitted in open court that she acted only as agent or representative of Arsenio Pua, the principal financier and, hence, she had no

legal capacity to sue petitioner; and that the CA failed to consider the fact that petitioners father, who co-owned the subject property, was not impleaded as a defendant nor was he indebted to the respondent and, hence, she cannot be made to sign the documents to effect the transfer of ownership over the entire property. On August 6, 2001, the CA issued its Resolution denying the motion on the ground that the foregoing matters had already been passed upon. On August 13, 2001, petitioner received a copy of the CA Resolution. On August 28, 2001, petitioner filed the present Petition and raised the following issues: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A DEBTOR OF THE RESPONDENT. II. WHETHER OR NOT AN AGENT WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE PRINCIPAL TO COLLECT DEBT IN HIS BEHALF COULD DIRECTLY COLLECT PAYMENT FROM THE DEBTOR. III. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT OF SALE WAS EXECUTED FOR A CAUSE.[14] Although, as a rule, it is not the business of this Court to review the findings of fact made by the lower courts, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions, at least three of which are present in the instant case, namely: when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; when the findings of facts of the courts a quo are conflicting; and when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion.[15] To arrive at a proper judgment, therefore, the Court finds it necessary to re-examine the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case. The Petition is meritorious. The principal issue is whether the Deed of Absolute Sale is supported by a valid consideration. 1. Petitioner argues that since she is merely the agent or representative of the alleged debtors, then she is not a party to the loan; and that the Deed of Sale executed between her and the respondent in their own names, which was predicated on that pre-existing debt, is void for lack of consideration. Indeed, the Deed of Absolute Sale purports to be supported by a consideration in the form of a price certain in money[16] and that this sum indisputably pertains to the debt in issue. This Court has consistently held that a contract of sale is null and

void and produces no effect whatsoever where the same is without cause or consideration.[17] The question that has to be resolved for the moment is whether this debt can be considered as a valid cause or consideration for the sale. To restate, the CA cited four instances in the record to support its holding that petitioner re-lends the amount borrowed from respondent to her friends: first, the friends of petitioner never presented themselves to respondent and that all transactions were made by and between petitioner and respondent;[18] second; the money passed through the bank accounts of petitioner and respondent;[19] third, petitioner herself admitted that she was re-lending the money loaned to other individuals for profit;[20] and fourth, the documentary evidence shows that the actual borrowers, the friends of petitioner, consider her as their creditor and not the respondent.[21] On the first, third, and fourth points, the CA cites the testimony of the petitioner, then defendant, during her cross-examination:[22] Atty. Diza: q. You also mentioned that you were not the one indebted to the plaintiff? witness: a. Yes, sir. Atty. Diza: q. And you mentioned the persons[,] namely, Elizabeth Tomelden, Teresa Moraquin, Maria Luisa Inocencio, Zenaida Romulo, they are your friends? witness: a. Inocencio and Moraquin are my friends while [as to] Jacob and Tomelden[,] they were just referred. Atty. Diza: q. And you have transact[ed] with the plaintiff? witness: a. Yes, sir. Atty. Diza: q. What is that transaction? witness: a. To refer those persons to Aura and to refer again to Arsenio Pua, sir. Atty. Diza: q. Did the plaintiff personally see the transactions with your friends? witness: a. No, sir. Atty. Diza: q. Your friends and the plaintiff did not meet personally? witness: a. Yes, sir. Atty. Diza: q. You are intermediaries? witness: a. We are both intermediaries. As evidenced by the checks of the debtors they were deposited to the name of Arsenio Pua because the money came from Arsenio Pua. xxxx Atty. Diza: q. Did the plaintiff knew [sic] that you will lend the money to your friends specifically the one you mentioned [a] while ago?

witness: a. Yes, she knows the money will go to those persons. Atty. Diza: q. You are re-lending the money? witness: a. Yes, sir. Atty. Diza: q. What profit do you have, do you have commission? witness: a. Yes, sir. Atty. Diza: q. How much witness: a. Two percent to Tomelden, one percent to Jacob and then Inocencio and my friends none, sir. Based on the foregoing, the CA concluded that petitioner is the real borrower, while the respondent, the real lender. But as correctly noted by the RTC, respondent, then plaintiff, made the following admission during her cross examination:[23] Atty. Villacorta: q. Who is this Arsenio Pua? Witness: a. Principal financier, sir. Atty. Villacorta:q. So the money came from Arsenio Pua? witness: a. Yes, because I am only representing him, sir. Other portions of the testimony of respondent must likewise be considered:[24] Atty. Villacorta: q. So it is not actually your money but the money of Arsenio Pua? witness: a. Yes, sir. Court: q. It is not your money? witness: a. Yes, Your Honor. Atty. Villacorta: q. Is it not a fact Ms. Witness that the defendant borrowed from you to accommodate somebody, are you aware of that? witness: a. I am aware of that. Atty. Villacorta: q. More or less she [accommodated] several friends of the defendant? witness: a. Yes, sir, I am aware of that. xxxx Atty. Villacorta: q. And these friends of the defendant borrowed money from you with the assurance of the defendant? witness: a. They go direct to Jocelyn because I dont know them. xxxx Atty. Villacorta:q. And is it not also a fact Madam witness that everytime that the defendant borrowed money from you her friends who [are] in need of money issued check[s] to you? There were checks issued to you?

witness: a. Yes, there were checks issued. Atty. Villacorta q. By the friends of the defendant, am I correct? witness: a. Yes, sir. Atty. Villacorta: q. And because of your assistance, the friends of the defendant who are in need of money were able to obtain loan to [sic] Arsenio Pua through your assistance? witness: a. Yes, sir. Atty. Villacorta: q. So that occasion lasted for more than a year? witness: a. Yes, sir. Atty. Villacorta: q. And some of the checks that were issued by the friends of the defendant bounced, am I correct? witness: a. Yes, sir. Atty. Villacorta: q. And because of that Arsenio Pua got mad with you? witness: a. Yes, sir. Respondent is estopped to deny that she herself acted as agent of a certain Arsenio Pua, her disclosed principal. She is also estopped to deny that petitioner acted as agent for the alleged debtors, the friends whom she (petitioner) referred. This Court has affirmed that, under Article 1868 of the Civil Code, the basis of agency is representation.[25] The question of whether an agency has been created is ordinarily a question which may be established in the same way as any other fact, either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The question is ultimately one of intention.[26] Agency may even be implied from the words and conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the particular case.[27] Though the fact or extent of authority of the agents may not, as a general rule, be established from the declarations of the agents alone, if one professes to act as agent for another, she may be estopped to deny her agency both as against the asserted principal and the third persons interested in the transaction in which he or she is engaged.[28] In this case, petitioner knew that the financier of respondent is Pua; and respondent knew that the borrowers are friends of petitioner. The CA is incorrect when it considered the fact that the supposed friends of [petitioner], the actual borrowers, did not present themselves to [respondent] as evidence that negates the agency relationshipit is sufficient that petitioner disclosed to respondent that the former was acting in behalf of her principals, her friends whom she referred to respondent. For an agency to arise, it is not necessary that the principal personally encounter the third person with whom the agent interacts. The law in fact contemplates, and to a great degree, impersonal dealings where the principal need not personally know or meet the third person with whom her agent transacts: precisely, the purpose of agency is to extend the personality of the principal through the facility of the agent.[29]

In the case at bar, both petitioner and respondent have undeniably disclosed to each other that they are representing someone else, and so both of them are estopped to deny the same. It is evident from the record that petitioner merely refers actual borrowers and then collects and disburses the amounts of the loan upon which she received a commission; and that respondent transacts on behalf of her principal financier, a certain Arsenio Pua. If their respective principals do not actually and personally know each other, such ignorance does not affect their juridical standing as agents, especially since the very purpose of agency is to extend the personality of the principal through the facility of the agent. With respect to the admission of petitioner that she is re-lending the money loaned from respondent to other individuals for profit, it must be stressed that the manner in which the parties designate the relationship is not controlling. If an act done by one person in behalf of another is in its essential nature one of agency, the former is the agent of the latter notwithstanding he or she is not so called.[30] The question is to be determined by the fact that one represents and is acting for another, and if relations exist which will constitute an agency, it will be an agency whether the parties understood the exact nature of the relation or not.[31] That both parties acted as mere agents is shown by the undisputed fact that the friends of petitioner issued checks in payment of the loan in the name of Pua. If it is true that petitioner was re-lending, then the checks should have been drawn in her name and not directly paid to Pua. With respect to the second point, particularly, the finding of the CA that the disbursements and payments for the loan were made through the bank accounts of petitioner and respondent, suffice it to say that in the normal course of commercial dealings and for reasons of convenience and practical utility it can be reasonably expected that the facilities of the agent, such as a bank account, may be employed, and that a sub-agent be appointed, such as the bank itself, to carry out the task, especially where there is no stipulation to the contrary.[32] In view of the two agency relationships, petitioner and respondent are not privy to the contract of loan between their principals. Since the sale is predicated on that loan, then the sale is void for lack of consideration. 2. A further scrutiny of the record shows, however, that the sale might have been backed up by another consideration that is separate and distinct from the debt: respondent averred in her complaint and testified that the parties had agreed that as a condition for the conveyance of the property the respondent shall assume the balance of the mortgage loan which petitioner allegedly owed to the NHMFC.[33] This Court in the recent past has declared that an assumption of a mortgage debt may constitute a valid consideration for a sale.[34]

Although the record shows that petitioner admitted at the time of trial that she owned the property described in the TCT,[35] the Court must stress that the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 382532[36] on its face shows that the owner of the property which admittedly forms the subject matter of the Deed of Absolute Sale refers neither to the petitioner nor to her father, Teodorico Doles, the alleged co-owner. Rather, it states that the property is registered in the name of Household Development Corporation. Although there is an entry to the effect that the petitioner had been granted a special power of attorney covering the shares of Teodorico Doles on the parcel of land described in this certificate,[37] it cannot be inferred from this bare notation, nor from any other evidence on the record, that the petitioner or her father held any direct interest on the property in question so as to validly constitute a mortgage thereon[38] and, with more reason, to effect the delivery of the object of the sale at the consummation stage.[39] What is worse, there is a notation that the TCT itself has been cancelled.[40] In view of these anomalies, the Court cannot entertain the possibility that respondent agreed to assume the balance of the mortgage loan which petitioner allegedly owed to the NHMFC, especially since the record is bereft of any factual finding that petitioner was, in the first place, endowed with any ownership rights to validly mortgage and convey the property. As the complainant who initiated the case, respondent bears the burden of proving the basis of her complaint. Having failed to discharge such burden, the Court has no choice but to declare the sale void for lack of cause. And since the sale is void, the Court finds it unnecessary to dwell on the issue of whether duress or intimidation had been foisted upon petitioner upon the execution of the sale. Moreover, even assuming the mortgage validly exists, the Court notes respondents allegation that the mortgage with the NHMFC was for 25 years which began September 3, 1994. Respondent filed her Complaint for Specific Performance in 1997. Since the 25 years had not lapsed, the prayer of respondent to compel petitioner to execute necessary documents to effect the transfer of title is premature. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint of respondent in Civil Case No. 97-82716 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.