AGENCY – NEGOTORIUM GESTIO

DELA PENA VS HIDALGO

16 PHIL. 450

FACTS: Federico Hidalgo as agent, collected rents and income from the properties belonging to his
principal Jose Dela Peña y Gomiz, which he collected in partial amounts on different dates to be
deposited in accordance with the verbal agreement between Dela Pena and Hidalgo in the general
treasury of the Spanish Government at an interest of 5 percent per annum. Which the interest is to
be deposited in order that it also might bear interest and Hidalgo did not remit or pay to Jose Dela
Peña y Gomiz, during his lifetime, nor to be representative of Dela Peña y Gomiz, wherefore he has
become liable to his principal and to the administrator for the said sum, together with its interest
which amounts to P72,548.24.

By virtue of the powers conferred upon him by Peña y Gomiz, Hidalgo took charge of the
administration of Dela Pena property and when for reasons of health he ceased to discharge his duties
and continually sent a letter requesting Peña y Gomiz, to appoint another person to substitute him in
the administration of Pena’s property. Because of his serious illness, Hidalgo was absolutely obliged
to leave the Philippines Island and notified Pena y Gomiz that he had renounced his powers and turned
over the administration of his property to Antonio Hidalgo to whom he should transmit a power of
attorney for the fulfillment, in due form of the trust that Hidalgo had been discharging or else execute
a power of attorney in favor of such other person as he might deem proper.

ISSUE: Whether Fredirico Hidalgo is an agent or negotorium gestio?

RULING: Agent. The person who took charge of the administration of property without express
authorization and without a power of attorney executed by the owner thereof, and performed the
duties of his office without opposition or absolute prohibition on the owner's part, expressly
communicated to the said person, is concluded to have administered the said property by virtue of an
'implied agency, in acordance with the provisions of article 1710 of the Civil Code, since the said owner
of the property, knowing perfectly well that the said person took charge of the administration of the
same, through designation by such owner's former agent who had to absent himself from the place
for well-founded reasons, remained silent for nearly nine years. Although he did not send a new power
of attorney to the said person who took charge of his property, the fact remains that, during the period
stated, he neither opposed nor prohibited the new agent with respect to the administration, nor did
he appoint another person in his confidence; wherefore it must be concluded that this new agent
acted by virtue of an implied agency, equivalent to a legitimate agency, tacitly conferred by the owner
of the property administered.