G.R. No.

L-9188 December 4, 1914

Hermanos v. Orense

MAIN TOPIC – Contracts - Chracteristics (Relativity – No one may contract in the name of another)

I. FACTS:
1. On and before Februaru 14, 1907, Engracio Orense had been the owner of a parcel of land in Guinobatan, Albay.
2. On February 14, 1907, Jose Duran, a nephew of Orense, sold the property for P1,500 to Gutierrez Hermanos, with
Orense’s knowledge and consent, executed before a notary a public instrument. The said public instrument contained
a provision giving Duran the right to repurchase it for the same price within a period of four years from the date of
the said instrument.
3. Orense continued occupying the land by virtue of a contract of lease.
4. After the lapse of four years, Gutierrez asked Orense to deliver the property to the company and to pay rentals for the
use of the property.
5. Orense refused to do so. He claimed that the sale was void because it was done without his authority and that he did
not authorize his nephew to enter into such contract.
6. During trial, Orense was presented as witness of the defense. He states that the sale was done with his knowledge and
consent. Because of such testimony, it was ascertained that he did give his nephew, Duran, authority to convey the
land. Duran was acquitted of criminal charges and the company demanded that Orense execute the proper deed of
conveyance of the property.

II. ISSUE/s

Whether or not the contract of sale of property as represented by Duran to Gutierrez Hermanos is valid.

III. HELD
Yes. The sale of the said property made by Duran to Gutierrez Hermanos was indeed null and void in the beginning,
but afterwards became perfectly valid and cured of the defect of nullity it bore at its execution by the confirmation
solemnly made by the said owner upon his stating under oath to the judge that he himself consented to his nephew
Jose Duran's making the said sale. The court held that the repeated and successive statements made by the defendant
Orense in two actions, wherein he affirmed that he had given his consent to the sale of his property, meet the
requirements of the law and legally excuse the lack of written authority, and, as they are a full ratification of the acts
executed by his nephew Jose Duran, they produce the effects of an express power of agency.

IV. DISPOSITIVE PORTION

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.

V. DOCTRINE/LAW

Art. 1317 – No one may contract in the name of anotherwithout being authorized by the latter or unless he has by law
a right to represent him. A contract entered intoin the ne=ame of another by one who has no authority or legal
representation or who has acted beyond his powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or
impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has beeen executed before it is revoked by the other contracting party.

Ponente: Torres, J.

Digest Maker: Balina, Namiel Maverick