RALLOS v FELIX GO CHAN & SONS REALTY CORP.

, 18
SCRA 251

Petitioner: RAMON RALLOS, Administrator of the Estate of

CONCEPCION RALLOS
Respodents:

FELIX

GO

CHAN

&

SONS

REALTY

CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS

Ponente: MUOZ PALMA

FACTS:
Concepcion and Gerundia both surnamed Rallos were
sisters and registered co-owners of a parcel of land known as
Lot No. 5983 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11116 of the Registry of
Cebu. On April 21, 1954, the sisters executed a special
power of attorney in favor of their brother, Simeon Rallos,
authorizing him to sell for and in their behalf lot 5983. Then
on March 3, 1955, Concepcion Rallos died. On September 12,
1955, Simeon Rallos sold the undivided shares of his sisters
Concepcion and Gerundia in lot 5983 to Felix Go Chan &
Sons Realty Corporation for the sum of P10, 686.90. The
deed of sale was registered in the Registry of Deeds of Cebu,
TCT No. 11118 was cancelled, and a new transfer certificate
of Title No. 12989 was issued in the names of the vendee.

On May 18, 1956, Ramon Rallos as administrator of the

Intestate Estate of Concepcion Rallos filed a complaint
praying that:
1. Sale of the undivided share of the deceased
Concepcion Rallos in lot 5983 be unenforceable,
and said share be reconvened to her estate;
2. Certificate of title issued in the name of Felix Go
Chan & Sons Realty Corporation be cancelled and
another title be issued in the names of the
corporation

and

the

"Intestate

estate

of

Concepcion Rallos" in equal undivided; and

3. Plaintiff be indemnified by way of attorney's fees
and payment of costs of suit.
The defendant Corporation's Answer contained a crossclaim
against its co-defendant, Simon Rallos while the latter filed a
third-party complaint against his sister, Gerundia Rallos. And
while the case was pending in the trial court, both Simon and
his sister Gerundia died and they were substituted by the
respective administrators of their estates.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the sale fell within the exception to the
general rule that death extinguishes the authority of the
agent.

RULING:
The sale is void. The court held that no one may
contract in the name of another without being authorized by
the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him
(Article 1317,New Civil Code). Simons authority as agent
was extinguished upon Concepcions death. The sale did not
fall under the exceptions to the general rule that death ipso
jure extinguishes the authority of the agent. Article 1930 is
inapplicable since the SPA in favor of Simon was not coupled
with interest and Article 1931 is inapplicable because he
knew of principal Concepcions death. For Art. 1931 to apply,
both requirements must be present.
The laws on agency, where the terms of which are clear
and unmistakable leaving no room for an interpretation
contrary to its tenor, should apply. The law provides that the
death of the principal ipso jure extinguishes the authority of
the agent to sell rendering the sale to a third person in good
faith unenforceable unless the agent had no knowledge of
the principals death at that time.