No.
Case Escra
1 G.R. No. 107282 March 16, 1994
THE MANILA REMNANT CO.,
INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
AND SPS. OSCAR C.
VENTANILLA AND CARMEN
GLORIA DIAZ, respondents.
digest
Garnishment is an attachment by means of which the plaintiff seeks to
subject to his claim property of the defendant in the hands of a third
person or money owed to such third person or garnishee to the
defendant.Garnishment is a species of attachment for reaching credits
belonging to the judgment debtor and owing to him from a stranger to
the litigation. It is an attachment by means of which the plaintiff seeks to
subject to his claim property of the defendant in the hands of a third
person or money owed by such third person or garnishee to the
defendant. The rules on attachment also apply to garnishment
proceedings.
Same; Same; When garnishment order shall be lifted.A garnishment
order shall be lifted if it is established that: (a) the party whose accounts
have been garnished has posted a counterbond or has made the requisite
cash deposit; (b) the order was improperly or irregularly issued as where
there is no ground for garnishment or the affidavit and/ or bend filed
therefor are defective or insufficient; (c) the property attached is exempt
from execution, hence exempt from preliminary attachment; or (d) the
judgment is rendered against the attaching or garnishing creditor.
Same; Same; Partial execution of judgment is not a ground for the
discharge of garnishment order. Neither does petitioners willingness to
reimburse render the garnishment order unnecessary.Partial execution
of the judgment is not included in the above enumeration of the legal
grounds for the discharge of a garnishment order. Neither does the
petitioners willingness to reimburse render the garnishment order
unnecessary. As for the counterbond, the lower court did not err when it
fixed the same at P500,000.00. As correctly pointed out by the
respondent court, that amount corresponds to the current fair market
value of the property in litigation and was a reasonable basis for
determining the amount of the counterbond.
Same; Upon refusal of the petitioner to execute absolute deed of sale, the
court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party
by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done
shall have the like effect as is done by the party.Regarding the refusal of
the petitioner to execute the absolute deed of sale, Section 10 of Rule 39
of the Rules of Court reads as follows: Sec. 10. Judgment for specific acts;
vesting titleIf a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of
land, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any other
specific act, and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the
court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party
by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done
shall have like effect as if done by the party. If real or personal property is
within the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof
may enter judgment divesting the title of any party and vesting it in
others and such judgment shall have the force and effect of a conveyance
executed in due form of law.
Civil Law; Consignation; Upon justified refusal of the petitioner to accept
payment of the balance of the contract price, the remedy of the
respondent is consignation.Against the unjustified refusal of the
petitioner to accept payment of the balance of the contract price, the
remedy of the respondents is consignation, conformably to the following
provisions of the Civil Code: Art. 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of
payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the
FACTS:
Petitioner Manila Remnant Co., Inc. is the owns parcels of land situated in Quezon City and constituting the Capital Homes
Subdivision Nos. I and II. Manila Remnant and A.U. Valencia & Co. Inc. entered into a contract entitled "Confirmation of Land
Development and Sales Contract" to formalize a prior verbal agreement whereby A.U. Valencia and Co., Inc. was to develop the
aforesaid subdivision for a consideration of 15.5% commision. At that time the President of both A.U. Valencia and Co. Inc. and
Manila Remnant Co., Inc. was Artemio U. Valencia. Manila Remnant thru A.U. Valencia and Co. executed two "contracts to sell"
covering Lots 1 and 2 of Block 17 in favor of Oscar C. Ventanilla and Carmen Gloria Diaz. Ten days after the signing of the contracts
with the Ventanillas, Artemio U. Valencia, without the knowledge of the Ventanilla couple, sold Lots 1 and 2 of Block 17 again, to
Carlos Crisostomo, one of his sales agents without any consideration. Artemio Valencia then transmitted the fictitious Crisostomo
contracts to Manila Remnant while he kept in his files the contracts to sell in favor of the Ventanillas. All the amounts paid by the
Ventanillas were deposited in Valencia's bank account. Upon orders of Artemio Valencia, the monthly payments of the Ventanillas
were remitted to Manila Remnant as payments of Crisostomo for which the former issued receipts in favor of Crisostomo.
General Manager Karl Landahl, wrote Artemio Valencia informing him that Manila Remnant was terminating its existing collection
agreement with his firm on account of the considerable amount of discrepancies and irregularities. As a consequence, Artemio
Valencia was removed as President by the Board of Directors of Manila Remnant. Therefore, Valencia stopped transmitting
Ventanilla's monthly installments. A.U. Valencia and Co. sued Manila Remnant to impugn the abrogation of their agency agreement.
The court ordered all lot buyers to deposit their monthly amortizations with the court. But A.U. Valencia and Co. wrote the
Ventanillas that it was still authorized by the court to collect the monthly amortizations and requested them to continue remitting
their amortizations with the assurance that said payments would be deposited later in court.
Thereafter, the trial court issued an order prohibiting A.U. Valencia and Co. from collecting the monthly installments. Valencia
complied with the court's order of submitting the list of all his clients but said list excluded the name of the Ventanillas. Manila
Remnant caused the publication in the Times Journal of a notice cancelling the contracts to sell of some lot buyers. To prevent the
effective cancellation of their contracts, Artemio Valencia filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against Manila
Remnant
The Ventanillas, believing that they had already remitted enough money went directly to Manila Remnant and offered to pay the
entire outstanding balance of the purchase price. Unfortunately, they discovered from Gloria Caballes that their names did not
appear in the records of A.U. Valencia and Co. as lot buyers. Also, Manila Remnant refused the offer of the Ventanillas to pay for the
remainder of the contract price. The Ventanillas then commenced an action for specific performance, annulment of deeds and
damages against Manila Remnant, A.U. Valencia and Co. and Carlos Crisostomo.
The trial court found that Manila Remnant could have not been dragged into this suit without the fraudulent manipulations of
Valencia. Subsequently, Manila Remnant and A.U. Valencia and Co. elevated the lower court's decision to the Court of Appeals
through separate appeals. On October 13, 1987, the Appellate Court affirmed in toto the decision of the lower court. Reconsideration
sought by petitioner Manila Remnant was denied, hence the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Manila Remnant should be held solidarily liable together with A.U. Valencia and Co. and Carlos
Crisostomo for the payment of moral, exemplary damages and attorney's fees in favor of the Ventanillas
HELD:
YES. In the case at bar, the Valencia realty firm had clearly overstepped the bounds of its authority as agent and for that
matter, even the law when it undertook the double sale of the disputed lots. Such being the case, the principal, Manila Remnant,
would have been in the clear pursuant to Article 1897 of the Civil Code which states that "(t)he agent who acts as such is not
personally liable to that party with whom he contracts, unless he expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits of his authority without
giving such party sufficient notice of his powers." However, the unique relationship existing between the principal and the agent at
the time of the dual sale must be underscored. Bear in mind that the president then of both firms was Artemio U. Valencia, the
individual directly responsible for the sale scam. Hence, despite the fact that the double sale was beyond the power of the agent,
Manila Remnant as principal was chargeable with the knowledge or constructive notice of that fact and not having done anything to
correct such an irregularity was deemed to have ratified the same. More in point, we find that by the principle of estoppel, Manila
Remnant is deemed to have allowed its agent to act as though it had plenary powers.
Article 1911 of the Civil Code provides: "Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal
is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers." In such a
situation, both the principal and the agent may be considered as joint feasors whose liability is joint and solidary (Verzosa vs. Lim, 45
Phil. 416). In essence, therefore, the basis for Manila Remnant's solidary liability is estoppel which, in turn, is rooted in the
principal's neglectfulness in failing to properly supervise and control the affairs of its agent and to adopt the needed measures to
 debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the prevent further misrepresentation. As a consequence, Manila Remnant is considered estopped from pleading the truth that it had no
thing or sum due. x x x Art. 1258. Consignation shall be made by direct hand in the deception employed by its agent. That the principal might not have had actual knowledge of the agent's misdeed is
depositing the things due at the disposal of the judicial authority, before of no moment.
whom the tender of payment shall be proved, in a proper case, and the
announcement of the consignation in other cases. The consignation
having been made, the interested parties shall also be notified thereof.
Art. 1260. Once the consignation has been duly made, the debtor may ask
the judge to order the cancellation of the obligation.

Same; Same; Upon consignation of the sum due, trial court may enter
judgment canceling the title of the petitioner over the property and
transferring the same to the respondents.Accordingly, upon
consignation by the Ventanillas of the sum due, the trial court may enter
judgment canceling the title of the petitioner over the property and
transferring the same to the respondents. This judgments shall have the
same force and effect as a conveyance duly executed in accordance with
the requirements of the law. Manila Remnant Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 231 SCRA 281, G.R. No. 107282 March 16, 1994
2

Domingo vs. RoblesFacts:Petitioner wants to dispose her property located in Marikina. Bacani volunteered to act as
Actions; Appeals; Evidence; Factual findings of the trial court, when petitioner's agent inselling the lot. Petitioner delivered her owner's copy of TCT to Bacani. Thereafter, the TCT was said to
[G.R. No. 153743. March 18, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court.It
2005] have beenlost. In its reconstitution, petitioner gave Bacani all her receipts of payment for real estate taxes. Bacani also
is a well-established principle that factual findings of the trial court, when
askedpetitioner to sign what she recalled was a record of exhibits. Petitioner waited patiently but Bacani did not showup any
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court. Petitioner has
NORMA B.
given this Court no cogent reason to deviate from this rule; on the more. Later, petitioner visited the lot and was surprised to see the respondents starting to build a house onthe subject
DOMINGO, petitioner,
contrary, the findings of the courts a quo are amply supported by the lot.Verification with ROD revealed that the lost title has already been reconstituted and cancelled with the registrationof
vs. YOLANDA ROBLES; and
evidence on record. deed of sale executed by the petitioner in favor of the respondent. A transfer of certificate of title was alsoissued to the
MICHAEL MALABANAN
ROBLES, MARICON respondent.Petitioner claimed not to have met any of the respondents nor having signed any sale over the property in favor
MALABANAN ROBLES, Evidence; Notarial Law; Presumptions; A notarized instrument enjoys a ofanybody. Petitioner alleged that the Deed of Absolute Sale is a forgery and therefore could not validly transferownership
MICHELLE MALABANAN prima facie presumption of authenticity and due executionclear and of the lot to the respondents.Respondent contented that she is a buyer in good faith and for value; that the lot was offered
ROBLES, All Minors convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal
to them by Bacani,as the agent of the petitioner. That after some time when they were already prepared to buy the lot,
Represented by Their Mother, presumption.Petitioner claims that her signature and that of her
husband were forged in the Deed of Absolute Sale transferring the Bacaniintroduced to them the supposed owners and agreed on the sale. Bacani and the introduced seller presented aDeed of
YOLANDA
ROBLES, respondents. property from the Domingo spouses to respondent. Relying on the Absolute Sale
general rule that a forged deed is void and conveys no title, she assails the already signed by the petitioner needing only respondents signature. That she paid full purchase price and the
validity of the sale. It is a well-settled rule, however, that a notarized original of the owner's duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title was given to her.Petitioner filed a case for the nullity
instrument enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due and reconveyance. RTC dismiss the complaint. CA affirmed lower courts
execution. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to overcome decision.Issue:Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to her claims.Held:No.Notarized instrument enjoys a prima facie
such legal presumption. Forgery cannot be presumed; hence, it was
presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincingevidence must be presented to overcome such legal
incumbent upon petitioner to prove it. This, she failed to do.
presumption. Forgery cannot be presumed. Bare allegations,unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. ITC,
Same; Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove herallegations. However, the petitioner failed to do so.The sale was admittedly
to proof.Petitioner also failed to convince the trial court that the person made with the aid of Bacani, petitioner's agent, who had with him the original of theowner's duplicate Certificate of Title
with whom Respondent Yolanda Robles transacted was in fact not to the property, free from any liens or encumbrances. The signatures ofSpouses Domingo, the registered owners, appear on
Valentino Domingo. Except for her insistence that her husband was out of the Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioner's husband met withRespondent Yolanda Robles and received payment for
the country, petitioner failed to present any other clear and convincing the property.The Torrens Act requires, as a prerequisite to registration, the production of the owner's certificate of title
evidence that Valentino was not present at the time of the sale. Bare
and theinstrument of conveyance. The registered owner who places in the hands of another an executed document oftransfer
allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.
of registered land effectively represents to a third party that the holder of such document is authorized todeal with the
Same; Sales; Presumptions; Without a clear and persuasive substantiation property.
of bad faith, a presumption of good faith in favor of the buyer stands.
Petitioner now stresses the issue of good faith on the part of
respondents. In the absence of a finding of fraud and a consequent
finding of authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, a
discussion of whether respondents were purchasers in good faith is
wholly unnecessary. Without a clear and persuasive substantiation of bad
 faith, a presumption of good faith in their favor stands.

Same; Same; Land Titles; The registered owner who places in the hands of
another an executed document of transfer of registered land effectively
represents to a third party that the holder of such document is authorized
to deal with the property.The sale was admittedly made with the aid of
Bacani, petitioners agent, who had with him the original of the owners
duplicate Certificate of Title to the property, free from any liens or
encumbrances. The signatures of Spouses Domingo, the registered
owners, appear on the Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioners husband met
with Respondent Yolanda Robles and received payment for the property.
The Torrens Act requires, as a prerequisite to registration, the production
of the owners certificate of title and the instrument of conveyance. The
registered owner who places in the hands of another an executed
document of transfer of registered land effectively represents to a third
party that the holder of such document is authorized to deal with the
property. Domingo vs. Robles, 453 SCRA 812, G.R. No. 153743 March 18,
2005
3 G.R. No. 88539 October 26,
1993
Civil Law; Agency; One who clothes another with apparent authority as FACTS: Kue Cuison is a sole proprietorship engaged in the purchase and sale of newsprint, bond paper and scrap.
KUE CUISON, doing business his agent and holds him out to the public as such cannot be permitted to
under the firm name and deny the authority of such person to act as his agent to the prejudice of Valiant Investment Associates delivered various kinds of paper products to a certain Tan. The deliveries were made by Valiant
style"KUE CUISON PAPER innocent third parties dealing with such person in good faith and in the pursuant to orders allegedly placed by Tiac who was then employed in the Binondo office of petitioner. Upon delivery, Tan paid for
SUPPLY," petitioner, honest belief that he is what he appears to be.As to the merits of the the merchandise by issuing several checks payable to cash at the specific request of Tiac. In turn, Tiac issued nine (9) postdated
vs. case, it is a well-established rule that one who clothes another with checks to Valiant as payment for the paper products. Unfortunately, sad checks were later dishonored by the drawee bank.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, apparent authority as his agent and holds him out to the public as such
VALIANT INVESTMENT cannot be permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his Thereafter, Valiant made several demands upon petitioner to pay for the merchandise in question, claiming that Tiac was duly
ASSOCIATES, respondents. agent, to the prejudice of innocent third parties dealing with such person authorized by petitioner as the manager of his Binondo office, to enter into the questioned transactions with Valiant and Tan.
Petitioner denied any involvement in the transaction entered into by Tiac and refused to pay Valiant.
in good faith and in the honest belief that he is what he appears to be
(Macke, et al. v. Camps, 7 Phil. 553 [1907]; Philippine National Bank v.
Left with no recourse, private respondent filed an action against petitioner for the collection of sum of money representing the price
Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 357 [1979]). From the facts and the evidence
of the merchandise. After due hearing, the trial court dismissed the complaint against petitioner for lack of merit. On appeal,
on record, there is no doubt that this rule obtains. The petition must however, the decision of the trial court was modified, but was in effect reversed by the CA. CA ordered petitioner to pay Valiant with
therefore fail. the sum plus interest, AF and costs.

Same; Same; Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the ISSUE: WON Tiac possessed the required authority from petitioner sufficient to hold the latter liable for the disputed transaction
principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter
to act as though he had full powers.Taken in this light, petitioner is
liable for the transaction entered into by Tiu Huy Tiac on his behalf. Thus,
even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily HELD:
liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he
had full powers (Article 1911 Civil Code), as in the case at bar.

Same; Estoppel; A party cannot be allowed to go back on his own acts and
representations to the prejudice of the other party who in good faith
relied upon them.Tiu Huy Tiac, therefore, by petitioners own
representations and manifestations, became an agent of petitioner by
estoppel. Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or representation
is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied
or disproved as against the person relying thereon (Article 1431, Civil
Code of the Philippines). A party cannot be allowed to go back on his own
acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who, in good
faith, relied upon them.
YES
As to the merits of the case, it is a well-established rule that one who clothes another with apparent authority as his agent and holds
him out to the public as such cannot be permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his agent, to the prejudice of innocent
third parties dealing with such person in good faith and in the honest belief that he is what he appears to be
It matters not whether the representations are intentional or merely negligent so long as innocent, third persons relied upon such
representations in good faith and for value. Article 1911 of the Civil Code provides:

Same; Same; Same; As between two innocent parties, the one who made Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act
it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the as though he had full powers.
resulting loss.Finally, although it may appear that Tiu Huy Tiac
The above-quoted article is new. It is intended to protect the rights of innocent persons. In such a situation, both the principal and

4 G.R. No. 137686 February
8, 2000
RURAL BANK OF MILAOR
(CAMARINES SUR), petitioner,
vs.
FRANCISCA OCFEMIA,
ROWENA BARROGO, MARIFE
O. NIO, FELICISIMO
OCFEMIA, RENATO OCFEMIA
JR, and WINSTON
OCFEMIA, respondents.
5 G.R. No.
160346 August 25,
2009
PURITA PAHUD, SOLEDAD
PAHUD, and IAN LEE
CASTILLA (represented by
Mother and Attorney-in-Fact
VIRGINIA
defrauded his principal (petitioner) in not turning over the proceeds of
the transaction to the latter, such fact cannot in any way relieve nor
exonerate petitioner of his liability to private respondent. For it is an
equitable maxim that as between two innocent parties, the one who
made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the
resulting loss. Cuison vs. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 391, G.R. No. 88539
October 26, 1993
Civil Law; Agency; Estoppel; A bank is liable to innocent third persons
where representation is made in the course of its normal business by an
agent even though such agent is abusing her authority.Tena had
previously transacted business on behalf of the bank, and the latter had
acknowledged her authority. A bank is liable to innocent third persons
where representation is made in the course of its normal business by an
agent like Manager Tena, even though such agent is abusing her
authority. Clearly, persons dealing with her could not be blamed for
believing that she was authorized to transact business for and on behalf
of the bank.
Same; Same; Same; Bank is estopped from questioning the authority of
the bank manager to enter into the contract of sale.In this light, the
bank is estopped from questioning the authority of the bank manager to
enter into the contract of sale. If a corporation knowingly permits one of
its officers or any other agent to act within the scope of an apparent
authority, it holds the agent out to the public as possessing the power to
do those acts; thus, the corporation will, as against anyone who has in
good faith dealt with it through such agent, be estopped from denying
the agents authority. Rural Bank of Milaor (Camarines Sur) vs. Ocfemia,
325 SCRA 99, G.R. No. 137686 February 8, 2000
Civil Law; Agency; Special Power of Attorney; A special power of attorney
is necessary for an agent to enter into a contract by which the ownership
of an immovable property is transmitted or acquired, either gratuitously
or for a valuable consideration.Under Article 1878, a special power of
attorney is necessary for an agent to enter into a contract by which the
ownership of an immovable property is transmitted or acquired, either
gratuitously or for a valuable consideration. Such stringent statutory
requirement has been explained in Cosmic Lumber Corporation v. Court
the agent may be considered as joint tortfeasors whose liability is joint and solidary.
It is evident from the records that by his own acts and admission, petitioner held out Tiac to the public as the manager of his store in
Binondo. More particularly, petitioner explicitly introduced to Villanueva, Valiants manager, as his (petitioners) branch manager as
testified to by Villanueva. Secondly, Tan, who has been doing business with petitioner for quite a while, also testified that she knew
Tiac to be the manager of the Binondo branch. Even petitioner admitted his close relationship with Tiu Huy Tiac when he said that
they are like brothers There was thus no reason for anybody especially those transacting business with petitioner to even doubt the
authority of Tiac as his manager in the Binondo branch.
Tiac, therefore, by petitioners own representations and manifestations, became an agent of petitioner by estoppel, an admission or
representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying
thereon (Article 1431, Civil Code of the Philippines). A party cannot be allowed to go back on his own acts and representations to the
prejudice of the other party who, in good faith, relied upon them. Taken in this light,. petitioner is liable for the transaction entered
into by Tiac on his behalf. Thus, even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the
former allowed the latter to fact as though he had full powers (Article 1911 Civil Code), as in the case at bar.
Finally, although it may appear that Tiac defrauded his principal (petitioner) in not turning over the proceeds of the transaction to
the latter, such fact cannot in any way relieve nor exonerate petitioner of his liability to private respondent. For it is an equitable
maxim that as between two innocent parties, the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the
resulting loss
FACTS: Several parcels of land were mortgaged by the respondents during the lifetime of the respondents grandparents to the Rural
bank of Milaor as shown by the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and the Promissory Note. Spouses Felicisimo Ocfemia and Juanita
Ocfemia, one of the respondents, were not able to redeem the mortgaged properties consisting of seven parcels of land and so the
mortgage was foreclosed and thereafter ownership was transferred to the petitioner bank. Out of the seven parcels of land that were
foreclosed, five of them are in the possession of the respondents because these five parcels of land were sold by the petitioner bank to
the respondents as evidenced by a Deed of Sale. However, the five parcels of land cannot be transferred in the name of the parents of
Merife Nino, one of the respondents, because there is a need to have the document of sale registered. The Register of deeds, however,
said that the document of sale cannot be registered without the board resolution of the petitioner bank confirming both the Deed of
sale and the authority of the bank manager, Fe S. Tena, to enter such transaction.
The petitioner bank refused her request for a board resolution and made many alibis. Respondents initiated the present proceedings
so that they could transfer to their names the subject five parcel of land and subsequently mortgage said lots and to use the loan
proceeds for the medical expenses of their ailing mother.
ISSUE: May the Board of Directors of a rural banking corporation be compelled to confirm a deed of absolute sale of real property
owned by the corporation which deed of sale was executed by the bank manager without prior authority of the board of directors of
the rural banking corporation?
HELD: YES. The bank acknowledges, by its own acts or failure to act, the authority of Fe S. Tena to enter into binding contracts.
After the execution of the Deed of Sale, respondents occupied the properties in dispute and paid the real estate taxes. If the bank
management believed that it had title to the property, it should have taken measured to prevent the infringement and invasion of title
thereto and possession thereof. Likewise, Tena had previously transacted business on behalf of the bank, and the latter had
acknowledged her authority. A bank is liable to innocent third persons where representation is made in the course of its normal
business by an agent like Manager Tena even though such agent is abusing her authority. Clearly, persons dealing with her could not
be blamed for believing that she was authorized to transact business for and on behalf of the bank.
spouses Pedro San Agustin and Agatona Genil were able to acquire a 246-square meter parcel of landsituated in Barangay Anos,-
Both died intestate, survived by their eight (8) children: respondents Eufemia, Raul, Ferdinand, Zenaida,Milagros, Minerva, Isabelita
and Virgilio.-1
992,
Eufemia, Ferdinand and Raul executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of UndividedShares
5
conveying in favor of petitioners
(
CASTILLA), Petitioners, of Appeals, 265 SCRA 168 (1996).
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, Same; Same; Same; Absence of a written authority to sell a piece of land
SPOUSES ISAGANI is, ipso jure, void, precisely to protect the interest of an unsuspecting
BELARMINO and LETICIA owner from being prejudiced by the unwarranted act of another.We
OCAMPO, EUFEMIA SAN have repeatedly held that the absence of a written authority to sell a
AGUSTIN-MAGSINO, ZENAIDA piece of land is, ipso jure, void, precisely to protect the interest of an
SAN AGUSTIN-McCRAE,
unsuspecting owner from being prejudiced by the unwarranted act of
MILAGROS SAN AGUSTIN-
another.
FORTMAN, MINERVA SAN
AGUSTIN-ATKINSON,
FERDINAND SAN AGUSTIN, Same; Sales; A purchaser of a real property is not required to make any
RAUL SAN AGUSTIN, further inquiry beyond what the certificate of title indicates on its face.
ISABELITA SAN AGUSTIN- But the rule excludes those who purchase with knowledge of the defect in
LUSTENBERGER and VIRGILIO the title of the vendor or of facts sufficient to induce a reasonable and
SAN AGUSTIN, Respondents. prudent person to inquire into the status of the property.The
Belarminos, for their part, cannot argue that they purchased the property
from Virgilio in good faith. As a general rule, a purchaser of a real
property is not required to make any further inquiry beyond what the
certificate of title indicates on its face. But the rule excludes those who
purchase with knowledge of the defect in the title of the vendor or of
facts sufficient to induce a reasonable and prudent person to inquire into
the status of the property. Such purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts
which should put a reasonable man on guard, and later claim that he
acted in good faith on the belief that there was no defect in the title of
the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his
obvious neglect by closing his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a
defect in the vendors title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for
value, if afterwards it turns out that the title was, in fact, defective. In
such a case, he is deemed to have bought the property at his own risk,
and any injury or prejudice occasioned by such transaction must be borne
by him Pahud vs. Court of Appeals, 597 SCRA 13, G.R. No. 160346 August
25, 2009
the Pahuds
, for brevity) their respective shares from the lotthey inherited from their deceased parents for P525,000.00-
Eufemia also signed the deed on behalf of
her four (4) other co-heirs
, namely:
Isabelita on the basis of a special power of attorney executed onSeptember 28, 1991 and also for Milagros, Minerva, and
Zenaida but without their apparent writtenauthority.
8
The deed of sale was also not notarized.- When Eufemia and her co-heirs drafted an extra-judicial settlement of estate to facilitate
the transfer of thetitle to the Pahuds,
Virgilio refused to sign it.
15
-
Virgilios co
-heirs filed a complaint
16
for judicial partition of the subject property before the RTCIn the course of the proceedings for judicial partition, a Compromise
Agreement
17
was signed withseven (7) of the co-heirs agreeing to sell their undivided shares to Virgilio for P700,000.00.
-The trial court did however, not approve compromise agreement
. Eufemia and her six (6) co-heirs, refused to sign the agreement because he knew of the previous sale made to the Pahud.
-On December 1, 1994, Eufemia acknowledged having received P700,000.00 from Virgilio.
Virgilio then sold the entire property to spouses Isagani Belarmino and Leticia Ocampo (Belarminos)-Belarminos immediately
constructed a building on the subject property.-Pahuds immediately confronted Eufemia who confirmed to them that Virgilio had sold
the property to theBelarminos.-Pahuds filed a complaint in intervention
in the pending case for judicial partition.
1avvphil
After trial, the RTC upheld the validity of the sale to petitioners-sale of the 7/8 portion of the property cover -declaring the defendant
Virgilio San Agustin and the Third-Party defendants spouses Isagani andLeticia Belarmino as in bad faith in buying the portion of
the property already sold by the plaintiffsrespondents appealed the decision to the CA arguing, in the main, that the sale made by
Eufemia for and onbehalf of her other co-heirs to the Pahuds should have been declared void and inexistent for want of awritten
auth-REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered, as follows:Declaring the sale of appellant Virgilio San Agustin to
appellants spouses, Isagani and Leticia Belarmino[,]as valid and binding
Issue: The status of the sale of the subject property by Eufemia and her co-heirs to the Pahuds Article 1874 of the Civil Code plainly
provides: Art. 1874. When a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of thelatter shall be in
writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void. Also, under Article 1878,
a special power of attorney is necessary for an agent to enter into a contract bywhich the ownership of an immovable property is
transmitted or acquired, either gratuitously or for avaluable consideration. A special power of attorney is necessary to enter into any
contract by which the ownership of an immovableis transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable considerationFor the
principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate, a power of attorney must so expressthe powers of the agent in clear
and unmistakable language
Based on the foregoing, it is not difficult to conclude, in principle, that the sale made by Eufemia, Isabelitaand her two brothers to the
Pahuds sometime in 1992 should be valid only with respect to the 4/8 portion of the subject property. The sale with respect to the 3/8
portion, representing the shares of Zenaida, Milagros,and Minerva, is void because Eufemia could not dispose of the interest of her
co-heirs in the said lot absentany written authority from the latter, as explicitly required by law. This was, in fact, the ruling of the CA.
While the sale with respect to the 3/8 portion is void by express provision of law and not susceptibleto ratification,
we nevertheless uphold its validity on the basis of the common law principle ofestoppel.
Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person makingit, and cannot be denied
or disproved as against the person relying thereon.True, at the time of the sale to the Pahuds, Eufemia was not armed with the
requisite special power of attorney to dispose of the 3/8 portion of the property.however, they admitted that they had indeed sold 7/8
of the property to the Pahuds sometime in1992.
33

6 Casor vs. rickards 5 phil 639
1.DEPOSIT; AGENT AND PRINCIPAL.When money is received as a
deposit by an agent, and that money is by the agent turned over to his
principal, with notice that it is the money of the depositor, the principal is
bound to deliver it to the depositor, even if his agent was not authorized
to receive such deposits.
2.BOOKS IN EVIDENCE.When a witness has testified that he has seen
the books of the defendant, and if produced they would prove the liability
of the latter, the failure of the defendant to present his books in evidence
strongly corroborates the testimony of the witness.
3.JUDGMENT; REVERSAL; DISCRETION OF THE COURT.When the record
requires a reversal of the judgment below, this court may, in its
discretion, enter final judgment, or it may remand the case to the lower
court for a new trial in whole or in part. Cason vs. Rickards, 5 Phil. 611,
No. 2437 February 13, 1906
Thus, the previous denial was superseded, if not accordingly amended, by their subsequentadmission.hey opted to remain silent
and left the task of raising the validity of the sale as an issue to their co-heir,Virgilio, who is not privy to the said transactionBy their
continued silence, Zenaida, Milagros and Minerva have caused the Pahuds to believe that theyhave indeed clothed Eufemia with the
authority to transact on their behalf. Clearly, the three co-heirs arenow estopped from impugning the validity of the sale from
assailing the authority of Eufemia to enter intosuch transaction.Belaraminos cannot argued that they purchased the property in good
faith.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the April 23, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals as well as itsOctober 8, 2003 Resolution in
CA-G.R. CV No. 59426, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.sale made by respondent Virgilio San Agustin to respondent spouses
Isagani Belarmino and LeticiaOcampo is valid only with respect to the 1/8 portion of the subject property
CASON V. RICKARDS AND SMITH BELL
When money is received as a deposit by an agent, andthat money is by the agent turned over to his principal,with notice that it is the
money of the depositor, theprincipal is bound to deliver it to the depositor, even ifhis agent was not authorized to received such
deposits.FACTS
:
Rickards was the agent in Dagupan of Smith Belland Co. He received from Cason as a deposit P2,000.xx.When he left the employ of
Smith Bell and Co., them oney was delivered to another agent of Sm ith Bell andCo. in the area. Furthermore, he notified
Smith Bell thatit was the money of Cason.
During trial, Rickards testified that a few days after hereceived the P2,000. xx he received from her an order o rwarrant
upon the Spanish treasury for the sum ofP4,200.xx. He then wrote Smith Bell asking if it could becollected. It was sent to Manila and
collected throughHongkong and Shanghai Bank and paid all of it out in thebusiness of Smith Bell and Co. P4,200.xx less
5%commision for collection, of which commission, SmithBell and Co. received the benefit. The books which werethen produced
in court by Sm ith Bell and Co. containedan entry or entries of the receipt by Smith Bell of thisP4,200.xx. Rickards testified
that he received expressdirections in regard to this particular transaction.Smith Bell and Co. did not present as witness any oftheir
employees or agents. They also did present theirbooks which according to Rickards would corroborate histestimony. Their lone
witness was a bookkeeper ofHongkong and Shanghai Bank. The witness could nottestify to whom the cash was paid but said that
based onthe books of the bank, Rickards received P4,200.xx. .The lower court found in favor of Sm ith Bell and
Co.,relieving it from its responsibility of P4,200.xx.
ISSUE
:
1. W/N the positive testimony of Rickards can beovercom e by the t estim ony of the bookkeeper.
2. W /N Rickards m ay be held li able for the m oneyof Cason
HELD
:Judgem ent of the lower court cannot be affirm edand m ust be reversed. The case is rem anded back.
Smith Bell could demonstrate the falsity of thetestimony of Rickards by producing the books which it didnot. Rickards being an agent
and someone who explicitlyturned over the money to Smith Bell as he left cannot bem ade liable to Cason.