Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agency - Extinguishment Digest
Agency - Extinguishment Digest
1. After infante had given the written authority to respondents to sell her land for the sum of P30,000,
respondents found a buyer in the person of one Pio S. Noche who was willing to buy the property under
Modes of Extinguishment of Agency the terms agreed upon, and this matter was immediately brought to the knowledge of Infante. 2. Infante,
perhaps by way of strategem, advised respondents that she was no longer interested in the deal and was
able to prevail upon them to sign a document agreeing to the cancellation of the written authority. 3.
Article 1919. Agency is extinguished: Infante had changed her mind even if respondents had found a buyer who was willing to close the deal,
is a matter that would not give rise to a legal consequence if respondents agree to call off the transaction
(1) By its revocation; in deference to the request of the petitioner. But the situation varies if one of the parties takes advantage
of the benevolence of the other and acts in a manner that would promote his own selfish interest. This
(2) By the withdrawal of the agent; act is unfair as would amount to bad faith. This act cannot be sanctioned without according to the party
prejudiced the reward which is due him. This is the situation in which respondents were placed by
(3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent;
petitioner. 4. Infante took advantage of the services rendered by respondents, but believing that she
(4) By the dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrusted or accepted the agency; could evade payment of their commission, she made use of a ruse by inducing them to sign the deed of
cancellation Exhibit 1. This act of subversion cannot be sanctioned and cannot serve as basis for petitioner
(5) By the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the agency; to escape payment of the commission agreed upon.
(6) By the expiration of the period for which the agency was constituted. (1732a)
Article 1920. The principal may revoke the agency at will, and compel the agent to return the document DANONA vs. BRIMO & CO.
evidencing the agency.
CASE NUMBER: G.R. No. 15823
Such revocation may be express or implied. (1733a)
DATE: September 12, 1921
INFANTE vs. CUNANAN
PONENTE: JOHNSON, J.:
CASE NUMBER: G.R. No. L-5180
FACTS:
DATE: August 31, 1953
Danon was employed byHolland American Oil Co thru its manager, Antonio A. Brimo,to look for a
PONENTE: BAUTISTA ANGELO, J. purchaser of its factoryfor the sum of P1,200,000, payable in cash;
FACTS: Brimopromised to pay the Danon, as compensation for his services, a commission of five per cent on
the said sum of P1,200,000, if the sale was consummated, or if he should find a purchaser ready, able and
1. Consejo Infante owns of two parcels of land with a house built thereon in Manila 2. Infante contracted willing to buy said factory for the said sum of P1,200,000;
the services of Jose Cunanan and Juan Mijares, to sell the property for a price of P30,000 subject to the
condition that the purchaser would assume the mortgage existing thereon in the favor of the No definite period of time was fixed where Danon should effect the sale. It seems that another broker,
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. 3. Infante agreed to pay them a commission of 5% on the purchase Sellner, was also negotiating the sale, or trying to find a purchaser for the same property and that the
price plus whatever overprice they may obtain for plaintiff was informed of the fact either by Brimo himself or by someone else; at least, it is probable that
Dano was aware that he was not alone in the field, and his whole effort was to forestall his competitor by
Page 37 being the first to find a purchaser and effect the sale.
the property. 4. Cunanan & Mijares found one Pio S. Noche who was willing to buy the property under Danon found such a purchaser, but Brimo refused to sell the said factory without any justifiable motive
the terms agreed upon with Infante but when they introduced him to Infante the latter informed them or reason therefor and without having previously notified Danon of its desistance or variation in the price
that she was no longer interested in selling the property and succeeded in making them sign a document and terms of the sale.
stating therein that the written authority she had given them was already can-celled. 5. However,
Infantedealt directly with Pio S. Noche selling to him the property for P31,000. 6. Upon learning this RTC ruled in favor of Danon
transaction, Cunanan & Mijares demanded from Infante the payment of their commission, but she
refused and so they brought the present action. CA affirmed RTCs ruling
ISSUE: Were Cunanan and Mijares as brokers entitled to payment of their commission? ISSUE: Was Danon as broker entitled to payment of his commission?
BUASON V PANUYAS
PEREZ V PNB FACTS: Spouses Dayao acquired a homestead patent over
a parcel of land (14hec) in Nueva Ecija. In 1930, they
executed a power of attorney authorizing Bayuga to
Del Rosario v. Abad, 104 Phil 648 - ABBY engage the services of an attorney to prosecute their
1958; Padilla case against Gambito for annulment of a contract of sale
Facts: of the parcel of land and after the termination of the
Plaintiffs are the children and heirs of Tiburcio case in their favor to sell it, and from the proceeds of
del Rosario. Del Rosario was a grantee of a the sale to deduct whatever expenses he had incurred in
homestead patent in Nueva Ecija. The the litigation.
Certificate was issue Feb 11, 1937. He obtained In 1934, Dayao-husband died leaving his wife and 4
a loan from Primitivo Abad Feb 24, 1937 children and in 1939, the 4 children executed a deed of
(remember the 5 yr prohibition from sale over 12 hec in favor of Buason. The Dayao-wife
encumbrance rule) for P2000 at 12% pa affixed her thumbmark as witness. Buason took
payable Dec 1941. possession of the land through their tenants that same
The security for the payment was the year.
improvement on the parcel of land. An In 1944, Bayuga sold 8 hec to Panuyas and Cruz. Bayuga
irrevocable special power of attorney was also died in 1946 and Dayao-wife in 1954.
executed authorizing Abad to sell and convey Buason and Panuyas claimed ownership over the same
the parcel of land. parcel of land. RTC ruled in favor of Panuyas, declaring
December 1945 Tiburcio died leaving the that Buason was barred by prescription.
mortgage debt unpaid. Later, Primitivo sold ISSUE: W/N the death of Dayao (principal) ended the
the land to his son Teodorico Abad for P1. Title authority of the agent
now registered in Teodoricos name. HELD: NO. It was not shown that Bayuga knew about the
Del Rosario heirs filed suit for recovery and death of his principal, Dayao. Art. 1931 states that
possession of the land. anything done by the agent, without the knowledge of
Issue: the death of the principal or of any other cause which
1. WoN Power of Attorney created an agency extinguishes the agency, is valid and shall be fully
coupled with an interest effective with respect to third persons who may have
2. WoN the land was sold validly contracted with him in good faith.
Held: No. The power of attorney executed by the Therefore, since the sale by the agent to Panuyas was
homesteader in favor of Abad did not create an registered, while the sale to Buason was not, the former
agency nor did it clothe the agency with has a better right over the parcel of land than the latter.
irrevocable character. A mere statement in the 18. HERRERA V UY KIM GUAN (ART. 1931)
FACTS: Natividad Herrera is the legitimate daughter of share of Concepcion Rallos Ordered the issuance of new TCTs to respondent corporation and the estate
Luis Herrera, now deceased and who died in China of Concepcion in the proportion of share each pro-indiviso and the payment of attorneys fees and cost
sometime after he went to that country. Luis was the of litigation [Respondent filed cross claim against Simon Rallos(*Simon and Gerundia died during
owner of the three parcels of land and their pendency of case)] Juan T. Borromeo, administrator of the Estate of Simeon Rallos was ordered to pay
improvements. Before leaving for China, Luis executed a defendant the price of the share of the land (P5,343.45) plus attorneys fees [Borromeo filed a third
deed of General Power of Attorney, which authorized party complaint against Josefina Rallos, special administratrix of the Estate of Gerundia] Dismissed
and empowered Uy Kim Guan among others to administer without prejudice to filing either a complaint against the regular administrator of the Estate of Gerundia
and sell the properties of Luis. Rallos or a claim in the Intestate-Estate of Cerundia Rallos, covering the same subject-matter CA: CFI
Lots were sold after 1936. As admitted by both parties, Decision reversed, upheld the sale of Concepcions share. MR: denied.
Luis is now deceased, but as to the specific and precise ISSUES & RULING: 1) WON sale was valid although it was executed after the death of the principal,
date of his death, the evidence of both parties fails to Concepcion.? Sale was void. o No one may contract in the name of another without being authorized
show. by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him (Art. 1317 of the Civil Code). o Simons
ISSUE: W/N the sale of the lands is valid authority as agent was extinguished upon Concolacions death 2) WON sale fell within the exception to
HELD: YES. The date of death of Luis has not been the general rule that death extinguishes the authority of the agent The sale did not fall under the
satisfactorily proven. The only evidence presented by the exceptions to the general rule that death ipso jure extinguishes the authority of the agent o Art. 1930
plaintiff is a supposed letter received from a certain inapplicable: SPA in favor of Simon Rallos was not coupled with interest o Art. 1931 inapplicable: Simon
Candi, dated Nov. 1936, purporting to give information Rallos knew (as can be inferred from his pleadings) of principal Concepcions death For Art 1931 to
that Luis (without mentioning his name) had died in apply, both requirements must be present 3) WON agents knowledge of the principals death is a material
August that year. This was properly rejected by the trial factor. Yes, agents knowledge of principals death is material. o Respondent asserts that: there is no
court for lack of identification. The testimony of the provision in the Code which provides that whatever is done by an agent having knowledge of the death
witness Lu Chung Chian that when he was in Amoy in the of his principal is void even with respect to third persons who may have contracted with him in good faith
year 1940, Luis visited him. Since the documents had and without knowledge of the death of the principal o Court says: this contention ignored the ignores the
been executed in 1937 and 1939, it is evident that the existence of the general rule enunciated in Article 1919 that the death of the principal extinguishes the
documents were executed during the lifetime of the agency. Article 1931, being an exception to the general rule, is to be strictly construed.
principal.
Even granting arguendo that Luis did die in 1936,
plaintiffs presented no proof that the agent Uy Kim Guan
was aware of the death of his principal at the time he
sold the property. The death of the principal does not
render the act of an agent unenforceable, where the
latter had no knowledge of such extinguishment of the
agency.