UNILAND RESOURCES VS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
Marinduque Mining Corporation got hold of a loan from the DBP and mortgaged a
warehouse lot and an office building lot previously mortgaged by MMC to Caltex, and
the mortgage in favor of DBP was entered on their titles as a second mortgage. The
account of the Marinduque Mining Corp., with the DBP was later transferred to the
Assets Privatization Trust (APT).
Caltex foreclosed the mortgage due to the nonpayment of MMC. APT on the other hand
offered for sale to the public through DBP its right of redemption on said two lots by
public bidding. DBP subsequently retrieved the account from APT and redeemed said
lots from Caltex . A public bidding for the sale of the two lots was held and the
warehouse lot was sold to Charges Realty Corp . The office building lot was later sold
by DBP to a different buyer. After the aforesaid sale, Uniland Resources sent two letters
to DBP asking for the payment of its broker's fee in instrumenting the sale of it’s the
warehouse lot to Charges Realty Corp. Uniland filed a case to recover from DBP the
broker's fee.
The Trial Court ordered DBP to pay the brokers’s fee to the petitioner. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the lower court ..
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner there is a contract of agency between DBP and Uniland in
the sale of warehouse lot.
Held:
No. There is no contract of agency, express or implied. The petitioner was never able to
secure the required accreditation from respondent DBP to transact business on behalf of
the latter. It was always made clear to petitioner that only accredited brokers may look
for buyers on behalf of respondent DBP. The contract of Agency is one founded on
mutual consent: the principal agrees to be bound by the acts of the agent and the latter in
turn consents to render service on behalf or in representation of the principal.