You are on page 1of 2

Jocelyn B. Doles vs. Ma.

Aura Tina Angeles


G.R. No. 149353. June 26, 2006.

Facts:
Petitioner executed a Deed of Absolute Sale ceding a parcel of land in favor of respondent to satisfy the
alleged indebtedness of the former in the amount of P405,430.00. Since the said land was mortgaged to
the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, they further agreed that respondent assume the
remaining balance of the loan. Learning that the petitioner still has arrearages, respondent demanded that
the arrearages be paid first. Petitioner did not heed, thus a case was filed by the respondent.

In answer, the petitioner alleged that sale was void for lack of consideration and that she was not indebted
to the respondent as she only 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. Further
petitioner contended that since the respondent is also an agent, she does not have the capacity to sue her.

It is an admitted fact by both petitioner and defendant, based on their testimonies, that respondent knew
that the money will be used by the friends of the petitioner; that the respondent was merely representing
Arsenio Pua; and that before the supposed friends of the petitioner defaulted in payment, each issued their
personal checks in the name of Arsenio Pua for the payment of their debt.

Issue/s:
Whether or not petitioner and respondent were acting on their personal capacity or as mere agents.

Ruling:
The question whether an agency has been created is ordinarily a question which may be established in the
same was as any other fact, either by direct or circumstantial evidence. Agency may be implied from the
words and conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the particular case. 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 frofessed to act as agent for another, she may be stopped 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.

In this case, petitioner knew that the financier of the respondent is Pua, and respondent knew that the
borrowers are friends of petitioner. It is sufficient that petitioner disclosed to respondent that the former
was acting in behalf of her principals, her friends. For an agency to arise, it is not necessary that the
principal personally encounter the third person with whom the agent interacts.

Here, 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.

That both parties acted as mere agents is shown by the undisputed fact that the friends of the petitioner
issued checks in payment of the loan in the name of Arsenio Pua.