P. 1
digest of Dizon v. CA and Overland Express Lines, Inc. (G.R. No. 122544)

digest of Dizon v. CA and Overland Express Lines, Inc. (G.R. No. 122544)

|Views: 1,018|Likes:
Published by Rafael Pangilinan

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Rafael Pangilinan on Nov 08, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Regina Dizon et al v. CA and Overland Express Lines, Inc. G.R. No. 122544 January 28, 1999 Martinez, J.

FACTS:  Overland Express Lines, Inc. entered into a Contract of Lease with Option to Buy with petitioners involving a 1,755.80 square meter parcel of land situated at corner MacArthur Highway and South “H” Street, Diliman, Quezon City. The term of the lease was for 1 year commencing from May 16, 1974 up to May 15, 1975. During this period, Overland Express Lines was granted an option to purchase for the amount of P3,000.00 per square meter. Thereafter, the lease shall be on a per month basis with a monthly rental of P3,000.00.  For failure of Overland Express Lines to pay the increased rental of P8,000.00 per month effective June 1976, petitioners filed an action for ejectment against it. The lower court rendered judgment ordering Overland Express Lines to vacate the leased premises and to pay the sum of P624,000.00 representing rentals in arrears and/or as damages in the form of reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises during the period of illegal detainer from June 1976 to November 1982 at the monthly rental of P8,000.00, less payments made, plus 12% interest per annum from November 18, 1976, the date of filing of the complaint, until fully paid, the sum of P8,000.00 a month starting December 1982, until Overland Express Lines fully vacates the premises, and to pay P20,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees. ISSUE: WON Overland Express Lines actually paid the alleged P300,000.00 to Fidela Dizon, as representative (agent) of petitioners in consideration of the option HELD: No.  CA opined that the payment by Overland Express Lines of P300,000.00 as partial payment for the leased property, which petitioners accepted (through Alice A. Dizon) and for which an official receipt was issued, was the operative act that gave rise to a perfected contract of sale, and that for failure of petitioners to deny receipt thereof, Overland Express Lines can therefore assume that Alice A. Dizon, acting as agent of petitioners, was authorized by them to receive the money in their behalf. CA went further by stating that in fact, what was entered into was a “conditional contract of sale” wherein ownership over the leased property shall not pass to the Overland Express Lines until it has fully paid the purchase price. Since Overland Express Lines did not consign to the court the balance of the purchase price and continued to occupy the subject premises, it had the obligation to pay the amount of P1,700.00 in monthly rentals until full payment of the purchase price.  In an attempt to resurrect the lapsed option, Overland Express Lines gave P300,000.00 to petitioners (thru Alice A. Dizon) on the erroneous presumption that the said amount tendered would constitute a perfected contract of sale pursuant to the contract of lease with option to buy. There was no valid consent by the petitioners (as co-owners of the leased premises) on the supposed sale entered into by Alice A. Dizon, as petitioners’ alleged agent, and Overland Express Lines. The basis for agency is representation and a person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. As provided in Article 1868 of the New Civil Code, there was no showing that petitioners consented to the act of Alice A. Dizon nor authorized her to act on their behalf with regard to her transaction with private respondent. The most prudent thing private respondent should have done was to ascertain the extent of the authority of Alice A. Dizon. Being negligent in this regard, private respondent cannot seek relief on the basis of a supposed agency.  Every person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. If he does not make such inquiry, he is chargeable with knowledge of the agent’s authority, and his ignorance of that authority will not be any excuse. Persons dealing with an assumed agency, whether the assumed agency be a general or special one, are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal, to ascertain not only the fact of the agency but also the nature and extent of the authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->