Pat Cases (Principles)

1. G.R. No. 228356, March 09, 2020 - MERIAN B. SANTIAGO, Petitioner, VS.
SPOUSES EDNA L. GARCIA AND BAYANI GARCIA, Respondents.
“The Court cannot subscribe to the view that Merian and Edna formed a partnership. By the
contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money,
property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits
among themselves.15 Partnership is essentially a result of an agreement or a contract,
either express or implied, oral or in writing, between two or more persons. Here, there was
neither allegation nor proof that Merian and Edna agreed to enter into a partnership for
purposes of carrying out the lending business.”
“There was likewise no agreement for the sharing of profits, only that Merian expects to
receive remittance of monthly interest from the amount she invested. At any rate, the
receipt by a person of a share of the profits, or of a payment of a contingent amount in case
of profits earned, is not a conclusive evidence of partnership. Article (Art.) 1769(3) of the
Civil Code provides that "the sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a
partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or
interest in any property from which the returns are derived". 16 There must be an
unmistakable intention to form a partnership which is lacking in this case. 17 Most
importantly, the facts do not disclose that there is mutual agency between Merian and Edna,
that is, neither party alleged that she can bind by her acts the other, and can be bound by
the acts of the other in the ordinary course of business.”
2. G.R. No. 206404. February 14, 2022 - CONCEPCION CHUA GAW, Petitioner,
VS. SUY BEN CHUA AND FELISA CHUA, Respondents.
“Our fundamental law dictates that non-Filipinos cannot acquire or hold title to private lands
or to lands of the public domain, except only by way of legal succession. 55 The primary
purpose of the Constitutional provision is the conservation of the national patrimony in the
hands of Filipino citizens.56 Not even an ownership in trust is allowed.57 Also, an implied
trust simply is not a mode of legal succession.58 Their main distinction is that
implied trusts take effect upon agreement by the parties to constitute the same,
whereby legal succession ensue at the moment of death of the decedent. Moreover,
there is no implied trust if the enforcement of the trust would be against law or public
policy.”
3. G.R. No. 200555, January 20, 2021 - PEDRO D. DUSOL AND MARICEL M.
DUSOL, Petitioners, VS. EMMARCK A. LAZO, AS OWNER OF RALCO BEACH,
Respondent.
“Undoubtedly, the best evidence to prove the existence of a partnership is the

contract or articles of partnership. Nevertheless, in its absence, its existence can be
established by circumstantial evidence.34 Under Article 1769 of the Civil Code,35 "the receipt
by a person of a share of the profits of a business is a prima facie evidence that he is a
partner in the business, [but] no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received
in payment as wages of an employee [or rent to a landlord].”
4. G.R. No. 259061. August 15, 2022 - SPS. SALVADOR AND LEONIDA M.
BANGUG AND SPS. VENERANDY ADOLFO* AND JESUSA ADOLFO, Petitioners,
VS. GEORGE DELA CRUZ, Respondent.
“The foregoing provisions confirm the co-owners to have a pro indiviso, pro rata, pari passu
right in the co-ownership. In other words, a co-owner's right is proportional to his or
her share or interest in the undivided co-owned property that is on equal footing
with the other co-owners. Such being the nature of a co-owner's right, Petitioners have
no right to possess the subject property better than that of Respondent George.”
5. G.R. No. 208140, July 12, 2021 - CARLOS J. VALDES, GABRIEL A.S. VALDES,
FATIMA DELA CONCEPTION AND ASUNCION V. MERCADO,* Petitioners, VS.
LA COLINA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (LCDC), PHILIPPINE
COMMUNICATION SATELLITE, INC. (PHILCOMSAT), LA COLINA RESORTS
CORPORATION (LCRC), MONTEMAR RESORTS AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (MRDC), JOSE MARI CACHO, HONORIO A. POBLADOR III,
AND ALFREDO L. AFRICA, Respondents.
“A joint venture, therefore, is akin to a partnership, the essential elements of

which are as follows: (1) an agreement to contribute money, property, or industry
to a common fund; and (2) an intent to divide the profits among the contracting
parties. On account thereof, Petitioners insist that the parties had all along entered into a
joint venture agreement. This can be gleaned from fact that LCDC undertook to divide the
net proceeds from the sale of the Montemar Villas lots between LCDC and the Valdeses, in
proportion to 60% and 40%, respectively. This fact was later affirmed by the February 21,
1990 letter agreement between the parties.”
6. G.R. No. 227896, January 29, 2020 - ROBERTO R. IGNACIO AND TERESA R.
IGNACIO DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE TERESA R.
IGNACIO ENTERPRISES, Petitioners, V. MYRNA P. RAGASA AND AZUCENA B.
ROA, Respondents.
Here, as aptly ruled by the CA, the proximity in time between the meetings held by the
respondents and Woodridge and the subsequent execution of the joint venture agreements
leads to a logical conclusion that it was the respondents who brokered it. Likewise, it is
inconsequential that the authority of the respondents as brokers had already
expired when the joint venture agreements over the subject properties were
executed. The negotiation for these transactions began during the effectivity of the
authority of the respondents, and these were carried out through their efforts. Thus, the
respondents are entitled to a commission.
7. G.R. No. 185129, June 17, 2013 - ABELARDO JANDUSAY, Petitioner,
Vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
“It cannot be denied that the accused-appellant, as Treasurer of CALAPUPATODA, received

and held money for administration and in trust for the association. He was thus under an
obligation to turnover the same upon the conclusion of his term as Treasurer.
Instead, however, he misappropriated the same to the prejudice of the association and,
despite demand, failed to account for or return them. Such failure to account, upon
demand, of funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation.”
8. G.R. No. 181844, September 29, 2010 - SPS. FELIPE and JOSEFA PARINGIT,
Petitioner, vs. MARCIANA PARINGIT BAJIT, ADOLIO PARINGIT and ROSARIO
PARINGIT ORDOÑO, Respondents.
“Implied trust under Article 1450 presupposes a situation where a person, using
his own funds, buys property on behalf of another, who in the meantime may not
have the funds to purchase it. Title to the property is for the time being placed in the
name of the trustee, the person who pays for it, until he is reimbursed by the beneficiary,
the person for whom the trustee bought the land. It is only after the beneficiary reimburses
the trustee of the purchase price that the former can compel conveyance of the property
from the latter.”
9. G.R. No. 176959, September 8, 2010 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST

COMPANY, INC. (as successor-in-interest of the banking operations of Global
Business Bank, Inc. formerly known as PHILIPPINE BANKING
CORPORATION), Petitioner, vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RIVERSIDE
MILLS CORPORATION PROVIDENT AND RETIREMENT FUND, represented by
ERNESTO TANCHI, JR., CESAR SALIGUMBA, AMELITA SIMON, EVELINA
OCAMPO and CARLITOS Y. LIM, RMC UNPAID EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
INC., and THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARIES OF THE PROVIDENT AND
RETIREMENT FUND OF RMC, Respondents.
“A trust is a "fiduciary relationship with respect to property which involves the existence of
equitable duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the
benefit of another." A trust is either express or implied. Express trusts are those
which the direct and positive acts of the parties create, by some writing or deed,
or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.”
10.G.R. No. 157852, December 15, 2010 - HEIRS OF DOMINGO VALIENTES,

Petitioners,
vs. Hon. REINERIO (Abraham) B. RAMAS, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch
29, 9th Judicial Region, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur and Vilma V. Minor,
Respondents.
“Yet, the right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust is

not absolute nor is it imprescriptible. An action for reconveyance based on an
implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years from the
issuance of the Torrens title over the property.”
11.G.R. No. 205867, February 23, 2015 - MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA,

represented by JOVIER TAGUFA, Petitioner, vs. GREGORIA TAGUFA,
ROBERTO TAGUFA and ROGELIO LUMABAN, Respondents.
“A recognized exception is that situation where plaintiff-claimant seeks direct reconveyance

from defendant of public land unlawfully and in breach of trust titled by him, on the principle
of enforcement of a constructive trust.”
12.G.R. No. 173120, April 10, 2019 - SPOUSES YU HWA PING and MARY GAW,
Petitioner, vs. AYALA LAND, INC., Respondents.
“A Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud, notwithstanding the long-standing rule
that registration is a constructive notice of title binding upon the whole world. The legal
principle is that if the registration of the land is fraudulent, the person in whose
name the land is registered holds it as a mere trustee.”
13.G.R. No. 213207. February 15, 2022 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner, VS. PASIG RIZAL CO., INC.,* Respondent.
“A trustee on behalf of the principal may apply for original registration of any land held in
trust by the trustee, unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust.”
14.G.R. No. 185592, June 15, 2015 - GEORGE C. FONG, Petitioner, vs. JOSE V.
DUEÑAS, Respondent.
“At the outset, the Court notes that the parties’ joint venture agreement to incorporate a
company that would hold the shares of Danton and Bakcom and that would serve as the
business vehicle for their food enterprise, is a valid agreement. The failure to reduce the
agreement to writing does not affect its validity or enforceability as there is no law
or regulation which provides that an agreement to incorporate must be in writing.”
15.G.R. No. 217777, August 16, 2017 - PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, Petitioner,

vs. LEONORA O. MIARAL,, Respondent.
“Thus, even assuming that a contract of partnership was indeed entered into by
and between the parties, we have ruled that when money or property [had] been
received by a partner for a specific purpose (such as that obtaining in the instant
case) and he later misappropriated it, such partner is guilty of estafa xxx Accused
failed to present evidence to show the existence of a business partnership apart from
relying on the Agreement dated March 6, 1996. Neither was there any evidence presented
showing that complainant's money was used to purchase garments to be sold abroad. Basic
is the rule that one who alleges must prove. In this case, the accused failed to establish, by
clear and convincing evidence, their defense of partnership.
G.R. No. 242087. December 07, 2021 - MA. JULIETA* B. BENDECIO AND MERLYN
MASCARIÑAS, Petitioners, VS. VIRGINIA B. BAUTISTA, Respondent.
“Bendecio and Mascariñas may insist on denying their liability, but they can no longer
renounce their admissions that they were, indeed, business partners who obtained a loan
for their business. Article 182533 of the Civil Code provides that when a person
represents himself to anyone as a partner in a partnership, he is liable to such
person who has given credit to the partnership. As such, both Bendecio and
Mascariñas must be held liable to Bautista. As to the extent of their liability, again, this
Court finds that the RTC and the CA correctly held Bendecio and Mascariñas solidarily liable
to pay the loan.”
16.G.R. No. 209090, September 23, 2020 - Philippine Development Alternatives

Foundation, ); Inc. [formerly Technology Resources Center Foundation, Inc.]
v. Fortune ,, Tobacco Corporation)
“There was no intention• to create a trust as evinced by the direct and positive acts of the
parties, by ' some writing, or by oral declaration in words. Neither is there implied trust -
whether resulting or constructive. A resulting trust is always presumed to have been
contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which can be found in the nature
of their transaction although not expressed in a deed or instrument of conveyance.
A resulting trust is based on •the equitable doctrine that it is the more valuable
consideration than the legal title that determines the equitable interest property. It arises
where, there being no fraud or violation of the ' circumstances indicate intent of the parties
that legal title in one be held for the benefit of another. It also arises in some instances as
where property, for example, is gratuitously conveyed for a particular purpose and that
purpose is either fulfilled or frustrated, the court may affirm the resulting trust in favor of:
the grantor or transferor, where the beneficial interest in property was not"
17.G.R. No. 169901, August 3, 2011 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner,

vs.CIRIACO JUMAMOY and HEIRS OF ANTONIO GO PACE, represented by
ROSALIA PACE, Respondents
"If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by
force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person
from whom the property comes."30 An action for reconveyance based on implied trust
prescribes in 10 years as it is an obligation created by law, 31 to be counted from the date of
issuance of the Torrens title over the property.32 This rule, however, applies only when the
plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property.”
18.G.R. No. 178782, September 21, 2011 - JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT, Petitioner,

vs. PROSENCIO D. JASO and EDEN G. JASO, Respondents.
“In the case of a dissolution of the partnership, the assignee is entitled to receive
his assignor’s interest and may require an account from the date only of the last
account agreed to by all the partners. From the foregoing provision, it is evident that
"(t)he transfer by a partner of his partnership interest does not make the assignee of such
interest a partner of the firm, nor entitle the assignee to interfere in the management of the
partnership business or to receive anything except the assignee’s profits. The assignment
does not purport to transfer an interest in the partnership, but only a future contingent right
to a portion of the ultimate residue as the assignor may become entitled to receive by virtue
of his proportionate interest in the capital.”
19.G.R. No. 246096, January 13, 2021 - SPOUSES BENNY AND NORMITA ROL,
Petitioners, VS. ISABEL URDAS RACHO,* Respondent.
“The co-ownership is dissolved and, in effect, each of the former co-owners is free to
exercise autonomously the rights attached to his or her ownership over the definite portion
of the land. It is crucial that the co-owners agree to which portion of the land goes to
whom. Hence, prior to partition, a sale of a definite portion of common property requires
the consent of all co-owners because it operates to partition the land with respect to the co-
owner selling his or her share. The co-owner or seller is already marking which portion
should redound to his or her autonomous ownership upon future partition.”
20.G.R. No. 154486, December 1, 2010 - FEDERICO JARANTILLA, JR., Petitioner,

vs.ANTONIETA JARANTILLA, BUENAVENTURA REMOTIGUE, substituted by
CYNTHIA REMOTIGUE, DOROTEO JARANTILLA and TOMAS JARANTILLA,
Respondents.
“There is a co-ownership when an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. 34 It

is a partnership when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money,
among themselves.”
21.G.R. No. 177382, February 17, 2016 - VIVA SHIPPING LINES, INC.,
Petitioner,
vs. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES MINING, INC., METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CITY OF
BATANGAS, CITY OF LUCENA, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, ALEJANDRO OLIT,
NIDA MONTILLA, PIO HERNANDEZ, EUGENIO BACULO, and HARLAN
BACALTOS, Respondents.
“Corporate rehabilitation is a remedy for corporations, partnerships, and

associations "who [foresee] the impossibility of meeting [their] debts when they
respectively fall due."94 A corporation under rehabilitation continues with its corporate life
and activities to achieve solvency,95 or a position where the corporation is able to pay its
obligations as they fall due in the ordinary course of business. Solvency is a state where the
businesses’ liabilities are less than its assets.”
22.G.R. No. 172690, March 3, 2010 - HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, represented by

ELENITO LIM, Petitioners, vs. JULIET VILLA LIM, Respondent.
“A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to place their money,
effects, labor, and skill in lawful commerce or business, with the understanding
that there shall be a proportionate sharing of the profits and losses among them. A
contract of partnership is defined by the Civil Code as one where two or more persons bind
themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention
of dividing the profits among themselves.12 Undoubtedly, the best evidence would have
been the contract of partnership or the articles of partnership.”
23.G.R. No. 169757, November 23, 2011 - CESAR C. LIRIO, doing business
under the name and style of CELKOR AD SONICMIX, Petitioner,
vs. WILMER D. GENOVIA, Respondent.
“On the other hand, Petitioner failed to prove that his relationship with Respondent was one
of partnership. Such claim was not supported by any written agreement. The Court notes
that in the payroll dated July 31, 2001 to March 15, 2002, 35 there were deductions from the
wages of Respondent for his absence from work, which negates Petitioner’s claim that the
wages paid were advances for Respondent’s work in the partnership.”
24.G.R. No. 216023, October 5, 2016 - DR. RESTITUTO C. BUENVIAJE,

Petitioner, VS. SPOUSES JOVITO R. AND LYDIA B. SALONGA, JEBSON
HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND FERDINAND JUAT BAÑEZ, Respondents.
“Article 1824. All partners are liable solidarily with the partnership for everything chargeable
to the partnership under Articles 1822 and 1823. xxx Evidently, the foregoing legal
provisions pertain to the obligations of a co-partner in the event that the
partnership to which he belongs is held liable. In this case, Buenviaje never dealt with
any partnership constituted by and between Jebson and Sps. Salonga. As previously
mentioned, the subject CTS, which was the source of the obligations relative to the
completion and delivery of Unit 5, solely devolved upon the person of Jebson. As there was
no partnership privy to any obligation to which Buenviaje is a creditor, Articles 1822 and
1824 of the Civil Code do not apply.”
G.R. No. 202414, June 4, 2014 - JOSEPHINE WEE, Petitioner,

vs.FELICIDAD MARDO, Respondent.
“A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property
described therein. It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner; nor
can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud: neither does it permit one
to enrich himself at the expense of others. Its issuance in favor of a particular person
does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not
named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered
owner.
25.G.R. 183374, June 29, 2010 - MARSMAN DRYSDALE LAND, INC, Petitioner vs.
PHILIPPINE GEOANALYTICS, INC AND GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC.,
Respondents.
“A joint venture being a form of partnership, it is to be governed by the laws on

partnership.20 Article 1797 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1797. The losses and profits shall be distributed in conformity with the agreement. If
only the share of each partner in the profits has been agreed upon, the share of each in the
losses shall be in the same proportion.
In the absence of stipulation, the share of each in the profits and losses shall be in
proportion to what he may have contributed, but the industrial partner shall not be liable for
the losses. As for the profits, the industrial partner shall receive such share as may be just
and equitable under the circumstances. If besides his services he has contributed capital, he
shall also receive a share in the profits in proportion to his capital.”
26.G.R. No. 232663, May 03, 2021 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Petitioner, VS. SPOUSES REMIGIO P. MAGAAN AND LETICIA L. MAGAAN,
Respondents.
“A taxable partnership has a separate juridical personality from its partners and is
liable for income taxation. Without clear and convincing proof that the taxpayers
received taxable income personally, or through the partnership, no intention to evade
payment of taxes may be inferred.”
27.G.R. No. 196733, November 21, 2018 - HEIRS OF ROGER JARQUE,

Petitioners, VS. MARCIAL JARQUE, LELIA JARQUE-LAGSIT, AND TERESITA
JARQUE-BAILON, Respondents.
“Under the Old Civil Code, the default property regime of the husband and wife is
the conjugal partnership of gains.34 This includes: (1) property acquired for a valuable
consideration during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the
acquisition is made for the partnership or for one of the spouses only; (2) property obtained
by the industry, wages or work of the spouses or of either of them; and (3) the fruits,
income, or interest collected or accrued during the marriage, derived from the partnership
property, or from that which belongs separately to either of the spouses. 35 Unless proved
otherwise, properties acquired during the marriage are considered partnership property.”
“Upon the death of either spouse, the conjugal partnership is dissolved. The surviving
spouse is entitled to his or her 112 share in the partnership, 37 while the remaining half
belongs to the estate of the deceased which will be inherited by his forced heirs.”
28.G.R. No. 180323, September 16, 2015 - PURINA PHILIPPINES, INC.,,

Petitioner,
vs. HON. WALDO Q. FLORES, in His capacity as Senior Deputy Executive
Secretary of the Office of the President, and NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY,
Respondents.
“P.D. 194 authorizes aliens, as well as associations, corporations or partnerships

owned in whole or in part by foreigners to engage in the rice and com industry.
The decree is a departure from R.A. 3018, which commands that the right to engage in the
rice and com industry be limited to citizens of the Philippines and associations, corporations
or partnerships whose capital or capital stock is wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines.
Whereas R.A. 3018 effectively eschews foreign participation in the rice and corn industry in
any degree, P.D. 194 endeavors to attract foreign investments that would help develop
lands for cultivating rice and corn in the country.51 While P.D. 194 authorizes the issuance of
licenses to aliens and business organizations to allow them to engage in the rice and corn
industry,52 R.A. 3018 prohibits it.”
29.G.R. No. 163959. August 1, 2018 - MARCELINO E. LOPEZ, FELIZA LOPEZ,

ZOILO LOPEZ, LEONARDO LOPEZ, and SERGIO F. ANGELES, Petitioners vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PRIMEX CORPORATION, Respondents
“One of the modes of extinguishing a contract of agency is by the death of either

the principal or the agent.14 In Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation,15 the
Court declared that because death of the principal extinguished the agency, it should follow
a fortiori that any act of the agent after the death of his principal should be held void ab
initio unless the act fell under the exceptions established under Article 1930 16 and Article
193117 of the Civil Code. The exceptions should be strictly construed. In other words, the
general rule is that the death of the principal or, by analogy, the agent extinguishes the
contract of agency, unless any of the circumstances provided for under Article 193 0 or
Article 1931 obtains; in which case, notwithstanding the death of either principal or agent,
the contract of agency continues to exist.”
30.G.R. No. 237246, July 24, 2019 - HAYDEN KHO, SR., Petitioner vs. DOLORES
G. MAGBANUA, MARILYN S. MERCADO,* ARCHIMEDESB. CALUB, MARIA E.
ONGOTAN, FRANCISCO J. DUQUE, MERLEG. RIVERA; DOLORES A. PULIDO,
PAULINO R. BALANGATAN, JR., ANAFEL L. ESCROPOLO, PERCIVAL A. DEINLA,
JERRY C. ZABALA, ROGELIO C. ONGONION, JR., HELEN B. DELA CRUZ, CENON
JARDIN, and ROVILLA L. CATALAN, Respondents
“It is settled that a corporation is a juridical entity with legal personality separate
and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people
comprising it. As a juridical entity, a corporation may act only through its
directors, officers, and employees. As such, obligations incurred by the
corporation, acting through its directors, officers, and employees, are its sole
liabilities, and these persons should not be held jointly and solidarily liable with
the corporation. However, being a mere fiction of law, this corporate veil can be pierced
when such corporate fiction is used: (a) to defeat public convenience or as a vehicle for the
evasion of an existing obligation; (b) to justify wrong, protect or perpetuate fraud, defend
crime, or as a shield to confuse legitimate issues; or (c) as a mere alter ego or business
conduit of a person, or is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to
make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit, or adjunct of another corporation.
31.G.R. No. 174978, July 31, 2013 - SALLY YOSHIZAKI, Petitioner, vs. JOY
TRAINING CENTER OF AURORA, INC., Respondent.
“As a general rule, a contract of agency may be oral. However, it must be written
when the law requires a specific form.33 Specifically, Article 1874 of the Civil Code
provides that the contract of agency must be written for the validity of the sale of a piece of
land or any interest therein. Otherwise, the sale shall be void. A related provision, Article
1878 of the Civil Code, states that special powers of attorney are necessary to convey real
rights over immovable properties.”
32.G.R. No. 228999, April 28, 2021 - ANA DE JOYA AND CIRIACO DE JOYA,
LERMA R. CASTILLO AND MARIO CASTILLO, SPOUSES DOMINGO CORDERO
AND LEONCIA CORDERO, AND RICARDO VILLALOBOS, AS THE SURVIVING
HEIRS OF SPOUSES EUFRONIO CORDERO AND TARCILA C. CORDERO,
Petitioners, VS. FRANCISCO P. MADLANGBAYAN, SUBSTITUTED BY
RODESINDA F. MADLANGBAYAN AND MARIA LOURDES M. MONTALBO, THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS, SPOUSES ROLANDO
DALIDA AND MARIA FLORITA DALIDA, SPOUSES GEORGE GULLET AND
CONCHITA GULLET, SPOUSES ROSENDO RAMOS AND ISABELITA RAMOS,
RENATO GO, CHOLLIE MAGNAYE-GO, VENECIO H. MAGNAYE, CRISTETA
SALCEDOMAGNAYE AND JAYSON MAGNAYE, Respondents.
“A contract of agency is extinguished by its revocation.73 As agency is a personal

contract of representation that is based on the trust and confidence reposed by the principal
upon the agent,74 it may be revoked by the principal at will.75 The withdrawal of such
authority by the principal may either be express or implied.”
“A contract of agency is personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The authority of
the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal. The agent is the
extension of the principal only insofar as acts performed by him that are within the scope of
his authority.77 By way of exception, a principal may be bound by the agent's acts
performed beyond the scope of his authority, in case of express or implied ratification.
Ratification, however, demands that the principal has full knowledge of all the material facts
or should have knowledge thereof in view of circumstances which invites "a reasonably
prudent man" to conduct an inquiry.”
33.G.R. No. 205998, April 24, 2017 - WILLIAM ANGIDAN SIY, Petitioner vs.
ALVIN TOMLIN, Respondent
“Under the Civil Code on agency, Art. 1869. Agency may be express, or implied from
the acts of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to
repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without
authority. Agency may be oral, unless the law requires a specific form.
Art. 1870. Acceptance by the agent may also be express or implied from his acts which
carry out the agency, or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances.”
"The basis of agency is representation and the same may be constituted expressly or
impliedly. In an implied agency, the principal can be bound by the acts of the implied agent.
"35 The same is true with an oral agency.”
34.G.R. No. 192602, January 18, 2017 - SPOUSES MAY S. VILLALUZ and JOHNNY
VILLALUZ, JR., Petitioners vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and the
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR DAVAO CITY, Respondents
“The law creates a presumption that an agent has the power to appoint a
substitute. The consequence of the presumption is that, upon valid appointment of a
substitute by the agent, there ipso jure arises an agency relationship between the principal
and the substitute, i.e., the substitute becomes the agent of the principal. As a result, the
principal is bound by the acts of the substitute as if these acts had been performed by the
principal's appointed agent. Concomitantly, the substitute assumes an agent's obligations to
act within the scope of authority, 18 to act in accordance with the principal's instructions, 19
and to carry out the agency, 20 among others. In order to make the presumption inoperative
and relieve himself from its effects, it is incumbent upon the principal to prohibit the agent
from appointing a substitute.”
35.G.R. No. 227990, March 7, 2018 - CITYSTATE SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner vs.
TERESITA TOBIAS and SHELLIDIE VALDEZ, Respondents
“The doctrine of apparent authority or what is sometimes referred to as the

"holding out" theory, or the doctrine of ostensible agency, imposes liability, not
"as the result of the reality of a contractual relationship, but rather because of the
actions of a principal or an employer in somehow misleading the public into
believing that the relationship or the authority exists. xxx Succinctly stating the
foregoing principles, the liability of a bank to third persons for acts done by its agents or
employees is limited to the consequences of the latter's acts which it has ratified, or those
that resulted in performance of acts within the scope of actual or apparent authority it has
vested.”
36.G.R. 163825, July 13, 2010 - VIOLETA TUDTUD BANATE, MARY MELGRID M.
CORTEL, BONIFACIO CORTEL, ROSENDO MAGLASANG, and PATROCINIA
MONILAR, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK (LILOAN,
CEBU), INC. and TEOFILO SOON, JR., Respondents.
“Under the doctrine of apparent authority, acts and contracts of the agent, as are
within the apparent scope of the authority conferred on him, although no actual
authority to do such acts or to make such contracts has been conferred, bind the
principal.20 The principal’s liability, however, is limited only to third persons who have been
led reasonably to believe by the conduct of the principal that such actual authority exists,
although none was given. In other words, apparent authority is determined only by the acts
of the principal and not by the acts of the agent. 21 There can be no apparent authority of an
agent without acts or conduct on the part of the principal; such acts or conduct must have
been known and relied upon in good faith as a result of the exercise of reasonable prudence
by a third party as claimant, and such acts or conduct must have produced a change of
position to the third party’s detriment.”
37.G.R. No. 202364, August 30, 2017 - ARTURO C. CALUBAD, Petitioner, VS.
RICARCEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
“When a corporation intentionally or negligently clothes its agent with apparent

authority to act in its behalf, it is estopped from denying its agent's apparent
authority as to innocent third parties who dealt with this agent in good faith.”
“The doctrine of apparent authority provides that even if no actual authority has been
conferred on an agent, his or her acts, as long as they are within his or her apparent scope
of authority, bind the principal. However, the principal's liability is limited to third persons
who are reasonably led to believe that the agent was authorized to act for the principal due
to the principal's conduct.”
38.G.R. No. 210043, September 26, 2018 - AYALA LAND, INC., Petitioner, VS.
ASB REALTY CORPORATION AND E.M. RAMOS & SONS, INC., Respondents.
“[U]nder the doctrine of apparent authority, the question in every case is whether the
principal has by his [/her] voluntary act placed the agent in such a situation that a person of
ordinary prudence, conversant with business usages and the nature of the particular
business, is justified in presuming that such agent has authority to perform the particular
act in question.”
39.G.R. No. 214057, October 19, 2015 - FLORENTINA BAUTISTA-SPILLE

represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Manuel B. Flores, Jr., Petitioner vs.
NICORP MANAGEMENT ND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BENJAMIN G.
BAUTISTA and INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK, Respondents
“The well-established rule is when a sale of a parcel of land or any interest therein
is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing, otherwise the
sale shall be void. To reiterate, such authority must be conferred in writing and must
express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language in order for the
principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell the real property. 23 It is a general rule that
a power of attorney must be strictly construed, and courts will not infer or presume broad
powers from deeds which do not sufficiently include property or subject under which the
agent is to deal.24 Thus, when the authority is couched in general terms, without mentioning
any specific power to sell or mortgage or to do other specific acts of strict dominion, then
only acts of administration are deemed conferred.”
40.G.R. No. 204447, May 03, 2021 - MARIA MAGDALENA V. AROMIN ALSO
KNOWN AS MARIA V. AROMIN, Petitioner, VS. HEIRS OF SPOUSES WILFREDO
AND LEONILA SOMIS, NAMELY: WILFREDO A. SOMIS, JR., VIOLITA SOMIS-
FLORES, ELEANOR SOMIS FLORES, OLIVE SOMIS DE CASTRO, DELIA SOMIS-
SORIANO, LALAINE SOMIS-DE LA CRUZ, CELSO A. SOMIS, AND ALL PERSONS
CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, Respondents.**
“The Compromise Agreement was clear that the contracting parties mutually agreed to
transfer to each other the properties indicated therein. Even if it was Maria's counsel
who prepared the written instrument, she or her representative was expected to
exercise due diligence in reviewing the entries therein before signing the
instrument. Moreover, if indeed there was a mistake on which property should be
transferred to the spouses Somis, Maria should have availed of her remedies immediately.”
41.G.R. No. 194964-65, January 11, 2016 - UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO, INC.,

Petitioner, vs. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, ET AL., Respondents.
“Ratification is a voluntary and deliberate confirmation or adoption of a previous
unauthorized act.126 It converts the unauthorized act of an agent into an act of the
principal.127 It cures the lack of consent at the time of the execution of the contract entered
into by the representative, making the contract valid and enforceable. 128 It is, in essence,
consent belatedly given through express or implied acts that are deemed a confirmation or
waiver of the right to impugn the unauthorized act.129 Ratification has the effect of placing
the principal in a position as if he or she signed the original contract.”
42.G.R. No. 182729, September 29, 2010 - KUKAN INTERNATIONAL

CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON. AMOR REYES, in her capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21, and ROMEO
M. MORALES, doing business under the name and style "RM Morales Trophies
and Plaques," Respondents.
“While a corporation may exist for any lawful purpose, the law will regard it as an
association of persons or, in case of two corporations, merge them into one, when
its corporate legal entity is used as a cloak for fraud or illegality. This is the doctrine
of piercing the veil of corporate fiction. The doctrine applies only when such corporate fiction
is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, or when
it is made as a shield to confuse the legitimate issues, or where a corporation is the mere
alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so organized and
controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency,
conduit or adjunct of another corporation.”
43.G.R. No. 170530 , July 5, 2010 - SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION &

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/PICK & SHOVEL, INC.,/ATLANTIC ERECTORS,
INC. (JOINT VENTURE), Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY,
Respondent.
“Apparent authority, or what is sometimes referred to as the "holding out" theory,

or doctrine of ostensible agency, imposes liability, not as the result of the reality
of a contractual relationship, but rather because of the actions of a principal or an
employer in somehow misleading the public into believing that the relationship or
the authority exists.40 The existence of apparent authority may be ascertained through
(1) the general manner in which the corporation holds out an officer or agent as having the
power to act or, in other words, the apparent authority to act in general, with which it
clothes him; or (2) the acquiescence in his acts of a particular nature, with actual or
constructive knowledge thereof, whether within or beyond the scope of his ordinary powers.
It requires presentation of evidence of similar act(s) executed either in its favor or in favor
of other parties.Easily discernible from the foregoing is that apparent authority is
determined only by the acts of the principal and not by the acts of the agent. The principal
is, therefore, not responsible where the agent’s own conduct and statements have created
the apparent authority.
44.G.R. No. 188288, January 16, 2012 - SPOUSES FERNANDO and LOURDES
VILORIA, Petitioners, vs. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., Respondents.
“Agency is basically personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The

authority of the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal; his
act is the act of the principal if done within the scope of the authority. Qui facit per alium
facit se. "He who acts through another acts himself."
45.G.R. No. 228402, August 26, 2020 - LOYOLA LIFE PLANS INCORPORATED
(NOW LOYOLA PLANS CONSOLIDATED INC.) AND ANGELITA D. LUMIQUED,
Petitioners, VS. ATR PROFESSIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION (NOW
ASIAN LIFE AND GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION), Respondent.; G.R.
No. 222912 - ATR PROFESSIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION (NOW
ASIAN LIFE AND GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION), Petitioner, VS.
LOYOLA LIFE PLANS INCORPORATED (NOW LOYOLA PLANS CONSOLIDATED
INC.) AND ANGELITA D. LUMIQUED, Respondents.
“It is important to clarify that Loyola is an agent of ATR. In a contract of agency, "a
person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation
or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter." 77 Therefore, a
planholder's payment made to Loyola has the same legal effect as payment made to ATR,
even if Loyola failed to immediately deposit the cash payment to its account.”
46.G.R. No. 165133, April 19, 2010 - SPOUSES JOSELINA ALCANTARA AND
ANTONIO ALCANTARA, and SPOUSES JOSEFINO RUBI AND ANNIE DISTOR-
RUBI, Petitioners, vs. BRIGIDA L. NIDO, as attorney-in-fact of REVELEN N.
SRIVASTAVA, Respondent.
“Article 1874 of the Civil Code explicitly requires a written authority before an
agent can sell an immovable property. Based on a review of the records, there is
absolutely no proof of Respondent’s written authority to sell the lot to Petitioners. In fact,
during the pre-trial conference, Petitioners admitted that at the time of the negotiation for
the sale of the lot, Petitioners were of the belief that Respondent was the owner of the lot.”
“It must be stressed that when specific performance is sought of a contract made with an
agent, the agency must be established by clear, certain and specific proof.”
47.G.R. No. 235260, August 27, 2020 - THE COMMONER LENDING

CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MA. NORY ALCALA, Petitioner, VS.
SPOUSES VOLTAIRE AND ELLA VILLANUEVA, Respondents.
“The special power or authority to sell finds support in civil law. Foremost, in
extrajudicial foreclosure, the sale is made through the sheriff by the mortgagees acting as
the agents of mortgagors-owners. Hence, there must be a written authority from the
mortgagor-owners in favor of the mortgagees. Otherwise, the sale would be void. 21
Moreover, a special power of attorney is necessary before entering "into any contract by
which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a
valuable consideration."22 Thus, the written authority must be a special power of attorney to
sell.”
48.G.R. No. 179625, February 24, 2014 - NICANORA G. BUCTON (deceased),

substituted by REQUILDA B. YRAY, Petitioner, vs. RURAL BANK OF EL
SALVADOR, INC., MISAMIS ORIENTAL, and REYNALDO CUYONG,
Respondents, vs. ERLINDA CONCEPCION AND HER HUSBAND AND AGNES
BUCTON LUGOD, Third Party Defendants.
“A mortgage executed by an authorized agent who signed in his own name without
indicating that he acted for and on behalf of his principal binds only the agent and not the
principal.”
49.G.R. No. 193517, January 15, 2014 - THE HEIRS OF VICTORINO SARILI,
NAMELY ISABEL A. SARILI,* MELENCIA** S. MAXIMO, ALBERTO A. SARILI,
IMELDA S. HIDALGO, all herein represented by CELSO A. SARILI, Petitioners,
vs. PEDRO F. LAGROSA, represented in this act by his Attorney-in-Fact
LOURDES LABIOS MOJICA, Respondent.
“The due execution and authenticity of the subject SPA are of great significance in
determining the validity of the sale entered into by Victorino and Ramon since the
latter only claims to be the agent of the purported seller (i.e., Respondent). Article
1874 of the Civil Code provides that "[w]hen a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein
is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall
be void." In other words, if the subject SPA was not proven to be duly executed and
authentic, then it cannot be said that the foregoing requirement had been complied with;
hence, the sale would be void.”
50.G.R. No. 230669, June 16, 2021 - REX SORONGON,1 Petitioner, VS. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
“It so held that although the novation of a contract of agency to make it one of
sale may relieve an offender from an incipient criminal liability, that did not happen
in the said case, for the partial payments and the proposal to pay the balance the accused
made during the barangay proceedings were not at all incompatible with his liability under
the agency that had already attached. Rather than converting the agency to sale, therefore,
he even thereby confirmed his liability as the sales agent of the complainants.”
51.G.R. No. 250085, June 14, 2021 - JULIE FUENTES RESURRECCION, Petitioner,
VS. SOUTHFIELD AGENCIES, INC., BRIGHTNIGHT SHIPPING & INVESTMENT
LTD. AND/OR ARLENE BAUTISTA, Respondents.
“As regards the liability of Bautista, suffice it to state that under Section 10 55 of Republic Act
No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, the corporate directors, officers, and
partners of the recruitment/placement agency is held solidarily liable with the
corporation or partnership for the money claims arising out of a contract involving
Filipino workers for overseas deployment. Per Respondents' Position Paper before the
LA, Bautista is an officer of Southfield, hence she is solidarily liable in the payment of
Petitioner's monetary award.”
52.G.R. No. 172690-March 3, 2010- HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, represented by

ELENITO LIM VS. JULIET VILLA LIM
A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to place their money, effects, labor,
and skill in lawful commerce or business, with the understanding that there shall be a
proportionate sharing of the profits and losses among them. A contract of partnership is
defined by the Civil Code as one where two or more persons bind themselves to contribute
money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits
among themselves. Undoubtedly, the best evidence would have been the contract of
partnership or the articles of partnership. Unfortunately, there is none in this case, because
the alleged partnership was never formally organized:
Art. 1769. In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply:
(1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are
not partners as to third persons;
(2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such
co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property;
(3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not
the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from
which the returns are derived;
(4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is a prima facie evidence
that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits
were received in payment:
(a) As a debt by installments or otherwise;
(b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord;
(c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner;
(d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the
business;
(e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by
installments or otherwise.
By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money,
property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among
themselves.
Pursuant to this article, the essential elements of a partnership are two, namely: (a) an
agreement to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to
divide the profits among the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly present in
the case at bar, for, admittedly, petitioners have agreed to, and did, contribute money and
property to a common fund. Hence, the issue narrows down to their intent in acting as they
did
Article 1767 of the Civil Code provides that by a contract of partnership, two or more
persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with
the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Two or more persons may also form
a partnership for the exercise of a profession. Under Article 1771, a partnership may be
constituted in any form, except where immovable property or real rights are contributed
thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. Article 1784, on the other
hand, provides that a partnership begins from the moment of the execution of the contract,
unless it is otherwise stipulated.
53.G.R. No. 162175 - June 28, 2010- MIGUEL J. OSSORIO PENSION

FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.
Article 1452 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 1452. If two or more persons agree to purchase a property and by common consent the
legal title is taken in the name of one of them for the benefit of all, a trust is created by
force of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of each. (Emphasis supplied)
For Article 1452 to apply, all that a co-owner needs to show is that there is "common
consent" among the purchasing co-owners to put the legal title to the purchased property in
the name of one co-owner for the benefit of all. Once this "common consent" is shown, "a
trust is created by force of law."
54.G.R. No. 183374-June 29, 2010 GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, vs.
MARSMAN DRYSDALE LAND, INC. AND PHILIPPINE GEOANALYTICS,
INC., Respondents.
A joint venture being a form of partnership, it is to be governed by the laws on

shall also receive a share in the profits in proportion to his capital. (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
55.G.R. NO. 170530 -July 5, 2010- SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION/PICK & SHOVEL, INC.,/ATLANTIC ERECTORS, INC. (JOINT
VENTURE), Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, Respondent.
Under the law on agency, however, "apparent authority" is defined as the power to affect
the legal relations of another person by transactions with third persons arising from the
other’s manifestations to such third person38 such that the liability of the principal for the
acts and contracts of his agent extends to those which are within the apparent scope of the
authority conferred on him, although no actual authority to do such acts or to make such
contracts has been conferred.
Apparent authority, or what is sometimes referred to as the "holding out" theory, or
doctrine of ostensible agency, imposes liability, not as the result of the reality of a
contractual relationship, but rather because of the actions of a principal or an employer in
somehow misleading the public into believing that the relationship or the authority
exists.The existence of apparent authority may be ascertained through (1) the general
manner in which the corporation holds out an officer or agent as having the power to act or,
in other words, the apparent authority to act in general, with which it clothes him; or (2)
the acquiescence in his acts of a particular nature, with actual or constructive knowledge
thereof, whether within or beyond the scope of his ordinary powers. It requires presentation
of evidence of similar act(s) executed either in its favor or in favor of other parties.
56.G.R. No. 181844-September 29, 2010- SPS. FELIPE AND JOSEFA PARINGIT,
PETITIONER, VS. MARCIANA PARINGIT BAJIT, ADOLIO PARINGIT AND
ROSARIO PARINGIT ORDOÑO, RESPONDENTS.
The nature of the transaction established the implied trust and this in turn gave rise to the
rights and obligations provided by law. Implied trust is a rule of equity, independent of the
particular intention of the parties.
57.G.R. No. 154486- December 1, 2010 FEDERICO JARANTILLA, JR., Petitioner,

vs. ANTONIETA JARANTILLA, BUENAVENTURA REMOTIGUE, substituted by
CYNTHIA REMOTIGUE, DOROTEO JARANTILLA and TOMAS
JARANTILLA, Respondents.
In the absence of stipulation, the share of each partner in the profits and losses shall be in
shall also receive a share in the profits in proportion to his capital. (Emphases supplied.)
58.G.R. No. 179446-January 10, 2011 LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC.,

V. GLODEL BROKERAGE CORPORATION AND R&B INSURANCE CORPORATION
Article 1868 of the Civil Code provides: “By the contract of agency a person binds himself to
render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the
consent or authority of the latter.” The elements of a contract of agency are: (1) consent,
express or implied, of the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the
execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agent acts as a
representative and not for himself; (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority.
59.G.R. No. 182177-March 30, 2011 RICHARD JUAN V. GABRIEL YAP, SR.
An implied trust arising from mortgage contracts is not among the trust relationships the
Civil Code enumerates. The Code itself provides, however, that such listing “does not
exclude others established by the general law on trust x x x.” Under the general principles
on
trust, equity converts the holder of property right as trustee for the benefit of another if the
circumstances of its acquisition makes the holder ineligible “in good conscience to hold and
enjoy it.” As implied trusts are remedies against unjust enrichment, the only problem of
great importance in the field of constructive trusts is whether in the numerous and varying
factual situations presented x x x there is a wrongful holding of property and hence, a
threatened unjust enrichment of the defendant.
60.G.R. No. 171805-May 30, 2011 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK V. MERELO B.

AZNAR, ET AL.
Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to which invested in
another. It is a fiduciary relationship that obliges the trustee to deal with the property for
the benefit of the beneficiary. Trust relations between parties may either be express or
implied. An express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties. An
implied trust comes into being by operation of law.Express trusts, sometimes referred to as
direct trusts, are intentionally created by the direct and positive acts of the settlor or the
trustor - by some writing, deed, or will or oral declaration. It is created not necessarily by
some written words, but by the direct and positive acts of the parties. This is in consonance
with Article 1444 of the Civil Code, which states that “[n]o particular words are required for
the creation of an express trust, it being sufficient that atrust is clearly intended.”
The creation of an express trust must be manifested with reasonable certainty and cannot
be inferred from loose and vague declarations or from ambiguous circumstances susceptible
of other interpretations.
61.G.R. No. 175073- August 15, 2011 ESTATE OF MARGARITA D. CABACUNGAN,

represented by LUZ LAIGO-ALI, Petitioner, vs. MARILOU LAIGO, PEDRO ROY
LAIGO, STELLA BALAGOT and SPOUSES MARIO B. CAMPOS AND JULIA S.
CAMPOS, Respondents.
It is now well settled that the prescriptive period to recover property obtained by fraud or
mistake, giving rise to an implied trust under Art. 1456 of the Civil Code, is 10 years
pursuant to Art. 1144. This ten-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date the
adverse party repudiates the implied trust, which repudiation takes place when the adverse
party registers the land.83
From the foregoing, it is clear that an action for reconveyance under a constructive implied
trust in accordance with Article 1456 does not prescribe unless and until the land is
registered or the instrument affecting the same is inscribed in accordance with law,
inasmuch as it is what binds the land and operates constructive notice to the world.
62.G.R. No. 178782- September 21, 2011 JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT, Petitioner, vs.
PROSENCIO D. JASO and EDEN G. JASO, Respondents.
Insofar as a partner’s conveyance of the entirety of his interest in the partnership is

concerned, Article 1813 of the Civil Code provides as follows:
Art. 1813. A conveyance by a partner of his whole interest in the partnership does not itself
dissolve the partnership, or, as against the other partners in the absence of agreement,
entitle the assignee, during the continuance of the partnership, to interfere in the
management or administration of the partnership business or affairs, or to require any
information or account of partnership transactions, or to inspect the partnership books; but
it merely entitles the assignee to receive in accordance with his contracts the profits to
which the assigning partners would otherwise be entitled. However, in case of fraud in the
management of the partnership, the assignee may avail himself of the usual remedies.
In the case of a dissolution of the partnership, the assignee is entitled to receive his
assignor’s interest and may require an account from the date only of the last account
agreed to by all the partners.
63.GR. Nos. 145817, 145822, 162562-October 19, 2011 URBAN BANK INC. V.
MAGDALENO M. PEÑA
Indeed, the Civil Code expressly acknowledged instances when two or more principalshave
granted a power of attorney to an agent for a common transaction. The agency relationship
between an agent and two principals may even be considered extinguished if the object or
the purpose of the agency is accomplished.
64.G.R. No. 167757- November 23, 2011 CESAR LIRIO, DOING BUSINESS
UNDER THE NAME CELKOR AD SONICMIX, V. WILMER GENOVIA
The relationship between the petitioner and respondent was that of an employer
and employee, not a partnership. The claim of partnership was not supported by
any written agreement. The requisites of an employer-employee relationship were
met. In the payroll presented by the respondent, there were deductions from his wages
for his absence from work,which negates the petitioner‟s claim that the wages were
advances for respondent‟s work in the partnership.
65.G.R. No. 194128-December 7, 2011 WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORP. V. AMOS

FRANCIA
In a contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something

in representation or on behalf of another with the latter‟s consent. It is said that the
underlying principle of the contract of agency is to accomplish results by using the services
of others- to do a great variety of things. Its aim is to extend the personality of the principal
or the party for whom another acts and from whom he or she derives the authority to act.
Its basis is representation.
Significantly, the elements of the contract of agency are: (1) consent, express or implied,of
the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in
relation to a third person; (3) the agent acts as a representative and not for himself; (4) the
agent acts within the scope of his authority.
66.G.R. No. 140528-December 7, 2011 MARIA TORBELA V. SPOUSES ANDRES

AND LENA ROSARIO
Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to which is vested in
the benefit of the beneficiary. Trust relations between parties may either be express or
implied. An express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties, while an
implied trust comes into being by operation of law.
A trust may have a constructive or implied nature in the beginning, but the registered
owner‟s subsequent express acknowledgement in a public document of a previous sale of
the property to another party, had the effect of imparting to the aforementioned trust the
nature of an express trust.
67.G.R. No. 188288-January 16, 2012 SPOUSES FERNANDO and LOURDES

VILORIA, Petitioners, vs. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.,
As categorically provided under Article 1869 of the Civil Code, "[a]gency may be express, or
implied from the acts of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to
authority."
68.G.R. No. 166044-June 18, 2012 COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE

CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD, UNIMARINE
SHIPPING LINES, INC., PAUL RODRIGUEZ, PETER RODRIGUEZ, ALBERT
HONTANOSAS, and BETHOVEN QUINAIN, Respondents.
Under Articles 1898 and 1910, an agent’s act, even if done beyond the scope of his
authority, may bind the principal if he ratifies them, whether expressly or tacitly. It must be
stressed though that only the principal, and not the agent, can ratify the unauthorized acts,
which the principal must have knowledge of. Expounding on the concept and doctrine of
ratification in agency, this Court said:
Ratification in agency is the adoption or confirmation by one person of an act performed on

his behalf by another without authority. The substance of the doctrine is confirmation after
conduct, amounting to a substitute for a prior authority. Ordinarily, the principal must have
full knowledge at the time of ratification of all the material facts and circumstances relating
to the unauthorized act of the person who assumed to act as agent. Thus, if material facts
were suppressed or unknown, there can be no valid ratification and this regardless of the
purpose or lack thereof in concealing such facts and regardless of the parties between
whom the question of ratification may arise. Nevertheless, this principle does not apply if
the principal’s ignorance of the material facts and circumstances was willful, or that the
principal chooses to act in ignorance of the facts. However, in the absence of circumstances
putting a reasonably prudent man on inquiry, ratification cannot be implied as against the
principal who is ignorant of the facts.67 (Emphases supplied.)
69.G.R. No. 158597- June 18, 2012 MARCOS V. PRIETO, Petitioner, vs. THE HON.
COURT OF APPEALS (Former Ninth Division), HON. ROSE MARY R. MOLINA-
ALIM, In Her Capacity as Pairing Judge of Branch 67 of the RTC, First Judicial
Region, Bauang, La Union, FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, now the
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, through ATTY. EDILBERTO B.
TENEFRANCIA, and SPOUSES ANTONIO and MONETTE PRIETO, Respondents.
Art. 1898. If the agent contracts in the name of the principal, exceeding the scope of his
authority, and the principal does not ratify the contract, it shall be void if the party with
whom the agent contracted is aware of the limits of the powers granted by the principal. In
this case, however, the agent is liable if he undertook to secure the principal’s ratification.
It should be noted that, under Article 1898 of the Civil Code, the principal’s ratification of
the acts of the agent, done beyond the scope of the latter’s authority, may cure the defect
in the contract entered into between the agent and a third person.
70.G.R. No. 171591-25 June 2012 ACE NAVIGATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs.
FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION and PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY
CORPORATION, Respondents.
In this score, Article 1868 of the Civil Code states:
ART. 1868. By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to
do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the
latter.
Corollarily, Article 1897 of the same Code provides that an agent is not personally liable to
the party with whom he contracts, unless he expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits of
his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers.
71.G.R. No. 189699 SIMNY G. GUY, GERALDINE G. GUY, GLADYS G. YAO, and the
HEIRS OF THE LATE GRACE G. CHEU, Petitioners, vs. GILBERT G.
GUY, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 189486- September 5, 2012 SIMNY G. GUY, GERALDINE G. GUY,
GLADYS G. YAO, and the HEIRS OF THE LATE GRACE G. CHEU, Petitioners,
vs. THE HON. OFELIA C. CALO, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC
-Mandaluyong City - Branch 211 and GILBERT G. GUY, Respondents.
Article 1440 of the Civil Code provides that:
"ART. 1440. A person who establishes a trust is called the trustor; one in whom confidence
is reposed as regards property for the benefit of another person is known as the trustee;
and the person for whose benefit the trust has been created is referred to as the
beneficiary."
72.G.R. No. 179096-February 06, 2013 JOSEPH GOYANKO JR. V. UCPB
The elements of an express trust include a competent trustor and trustee, an ascertainable
trust res, and sufficiently certain beneficiaries. Each of the above elements is required to be
established, and, if any one of them is missing, it is fatal to the trust. There must be a
present and complete disposition of the trust property, notwithstanding that the enjoyment
in the beneficiary will take place in the future. It is essential, too, that the purpose be an
active oneto prevent trust from being executed into a legal estate or interest, and one that
is not in contravention of some prohibition of statute or rule of public policy. There must
also be some power of administration other than a mere duty to perform a contract
although the contract is fora third party beneficiary. A declaration of terms is essential, and
these must be stated with reasonable certainty in order that the trustee may administer,
and that the court, if called upon soto do, may enforce, the trust.
73.G.R. No.171692 -June 3, 2013 SPOUSES DELFIN O. TUMIBAY and AURORA T.

TUMIBAY-deceased; GRACE JULIE ANN TUMIBAY MANUEL, legal
representative, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES MELVIN A. LOPEZ and ROWENA
GAY T. VISITACION LOPEZ, Respondents.
Art. 1898. If the agent contracts in the name of the principal, exceeding the scope of his
authority, and the principal does not ratify the contract, it shall be void if the party with
whom the agent contracted is aware of the limits of the powers granted by the principal. In
this case, however, the agent is liable if he undertook to secure the principal’s ratification.
74.G.R. No. 174978-July 31, 2013 SALLY YOSHIZAKI, Petitioner, vs. JOY
TRAINING CENTER OF AURORA, INC., Respondent.
BRION, J.:
The special power of attorney mandated by law must be one that expressly mentions a sale
or that includes a sale as a necessary ingredient of the authorized act. We unequivocably
declared in Cosmic Lumber Corporation v. Court of Appeals 34 that a special power of
attorneymust express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language for the
principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate. When there is any reasonable
doubt that the language so used conveys such power, no such construction shall be given
the document. The purpose of the law in requiring a special power of attorney in the
disposition of immovable property is to protect the interest of an unsuspecting owner from
being prejudiced by the unwarranted act of another and to caution the buyer to assure
himself of the specific authorization of the putative agent.
75.G.R. No. 189827-October 16, 2013 GERSIP ASSOCIATION, INC., LETICIA
ALMAZAN, ANGELA NARVAEZ, MARIA B. PINEDA, LETICIA DE MESA AND
ALFREDO D. PINEDA, Petitioners, vs. GOVERNMENT INSURANCE SERVICE
SYSTEM, Respondent.
We sustain the rulings of the GSIS Board and CA.
Trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership in
property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable
ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise
of certain powers by the latter.19 A trust fund refers to money or property set aside as a
trust for the benefit of another and held by a trustee.20 Under the Civil Code, trusts are
classified as either express or implied. An express trust is created by the intention of the
trustor or of the parties, while an implied trust comes into being by operation of law.
76.G.R. No. 193517 -January 15, 2014 THE HEIRS OF VICTORINO SARILI,
NAMELY: ISABEL A. SARILI,* MELENCIA** S. MAXIMO, ALBERTO A. SARILI,
IMELDA S. HIDALGO, all herein represented by CELSO A. SARILI, Petitioners,
vs. PEDRO F. LAGROSA, represented in this act by his Attorney-in-Fact
LOURDES LABIOS MOJICA, Respondent.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The strength of the buyer’s inquiry on the seller’s capacity or legal authority to sell depends
on the proof of capacity of the seller. If the proof of capacity consists of a special power of
attorney duly notarized, mere inspection of the face of such public document already
constitutes sufficient inquiry. If no such special power of attorney is provided or there is one
but there appears to be flaws in its notarial acknowledgment, mere inspection of the
document will not do; the buyer must show that his investigation went beyond the
document and into the circumstances of its execution.
77.G.R. No. 195580-April 21, 2014 NARRA NICKEL MINING AND DEVELOPMENT
CORP., TESORO MINING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., and MCARTHUR MINING,
INC., Petitioners, vs. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES CORP., Respondent.
A partnership is defined as two or more persons who bind themselves to contribute money,
property, or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among
themselves.On the other hand, joint ventures have been deemed to be "akin" to
partnerships since it is difficult to distinguish between joint ventures and partnerships.
Thus:
[T]he relations of the parties to a joint venture and the nature of their association are so
similar and closely akin to a partnership that it is ordinarily held that their rights, duties,
and liabilities are to be tested by rules which are closely analogous to and substantially the
same, if not exactly the same, as those which govern partnership. In fact, it has been said
that the trend in the law has been to blur the distinctions between a partnership and a joint
venture, very little law being found applicable to one that does not apply to the other
78.G.R. No. 196023-April 21, 2014 JOSE JUAN TONG, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. GO
TIAT KUN, ET AL., Respondents.
Guided by the foregoing definitions, the Court is in conformity with the finding of the trial
court that an implied resulting trust was created as provided under the first sentence of
Article 1448 which is sometimes referred to as a purchase money resulting trust, the
elements of which are: (a) an actual payment of money, property or services, or an
equivalent, constituting valuable consideration; and (b) such consideration must be
furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust.
79.G.R. No. 187769-June 4, 2014 ALVIN PATRIMONIO, Petitioner, vs.

NAPOLEON GUTIERREZ and OCTAVIO MARASIGANIII, Respondents.
Article 1878 paragraph 7 of the Civil Code expressly requires a special power of authority
before an agent can loan or borrow money in behalf of the principal, to wit: Article 1878
does not state that the authority be in writing. As long as the mandate is express, such
authority may be either oral or written. We unequivocally declared in one case that the
requirement under Article 1878 of the Civil Code refers to the nature of the authorization
and not to its form. Be that as it may, the authority must be duly established by competent
and convincing evidence other than the self serving assertion of the party claiming that such
authority was verbally given. And more recently, We stated that, if the special authority is
not written, then it must be duly established by evidence.
80.G.R. No. 167519-January 14, 2015 THE WELLEX GROUP, INC., Petitioner, vs.
U-LAND AIRLINES, CO., LTD., Respondent.
LEONEN, J.:
Rescission, as defined by Article 1385, mandates that the parties must return to each other
everything that they may have received as a result of the contract. This pertains to
rescission or resolution under Article 1191, as well as the provisions governing all forms of
rescissible contracts.
For Article 1191 to be applicable, however, there must be reciprocal prestations as

distinguished from mutual obligations between or among the parties. A prestation is the
object of an obligation, and it is the conduct required by the parties to do or not to do, or to
give.177 Parties may be mutually obligated to each other, but the prestations of these
obligations are not necessarily reciprocal. The reciprocal prestations must necessarily
emanate from the same cause that gave rise to the existence of the contract. This
distinction is best illustrated by an established authority in civil law, the late Arturo
Tolentino:
This article applies only to reciprocal obligations. It has no application to every case where
two persons are mutually debtor and creditor of each other. There must be reciprocity
between them. Both relations must arise from the same cause, such that one obligation is
correlative to the other. Thus, a person may be the debtor of another by reason of an
agency, and his creditor by reason of a loan. They are mutually obligated, but the
obligations are not reciprocal. Reciprocity arises from identity of cause, and necessarily the
two obligations are created at the same time
81.G.R. No. 163928-January 21, 2015 MANUEL JUSAYAN, ALFREDO JUSAYAN,

AND MICHAEL JUSAYAN Petitioners, vs. JORGE SOMBILLA, Respondent
The basis of the civil law relationship of agency is representation,the elements of which are,
namely: (a) the relationship is established by the parties’ consent, express or implied; (b)
the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (c) the agent acts
as representative and not for himself; and (d) the agent acts within the scope of his
authority.12 Whether or not an agency has been created is determined by the fact that one
is representing and acting for another.13 The law does not presume agency; hence, proving
its existence, nature and extent is incumbent upon the person alleging it.
82.G.R. No. 191972-January 26, 2015 HENRY ONG LAY HIN, Petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (2nd Division), HON. GABRIEL T. INGLES, as Presiding
Judge of RTC Branch 58, Cebu City, and the PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
The agency created between a counsel and a client is a highly fiduciary relationship. A
counsel becomes the eyes and ears in the prosecution or defense of his or her client’s case.
This is inevitable because a competent counsel is expected to understand the law that
frames the strategies he or she employs in a chosen legal remedy. Counsel carefully lays
down the procedure that will effectively and efficiently achieve his or her client’s interests.
Counsel should also have a grasp of the facts, and among the plethora of details, he or she
chooses which are relevant for the legal cause of action or defense being pursued.
83.G.R. No. 168616-January 28, 2015 HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION,

Petitioner, v. LA SAVOIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
LEONEN, J.:
Buan Vda. De Esconde v. Court of Appeals103 exhaustively discussed the concept of a trust
and its classification into express and implied trusts, as well as resulting and constructive
trusts:
Trust is the legal relationship between one person having an equitable ownership in
property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable
ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise
of certain powers by the latter. Trusts are either express or implied. An express trust is
created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed or will or by
words evidencing an intention to create a trust. No particular words are required for the
creation of an express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended.
On the other hand, implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible
from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or which are superinduced on the
transaction by operation of law as matters of equity, independently of the
particular.intention of the parties. In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or constructive
trusts. These two are differentiated from each other as follows:
Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not
legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed always to have been
contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature or circumstances of the
consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested with
legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another. On the
other hand, constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy
the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention
against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to
property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.104 (Emphasis
supplied)
Articles 1450, 1454, 1455, and 1456 of the Civil Code provide examples of constructive
trusts:
Art. 1450. If the price of a sale of property is loaned or paid by one person for the benefit of
another and the conveyance is made to the lender or payor to secure the payment of the
debt, a trust arises by operation of law in favor of the person to whom the money is loaned
or for whom it is paid. The latter may redeem the property and compel a conveyance
thereof to him.
Art. 1454. If an absolute conveyance of property is made in order to secure the

performance of an obligation of the grantor toward the grantee, a trust by virtue of law is
established. If the fulfillment of the obligation is offered by the grantor when it becomes
due, he may demand the reconveyance of the property to him.
Art. 1455. When any trustee, guardian or other person holding a fiduciary relationship uses
trust funds for the purchase of property and causes the conveyance to be made to him or to
a third person, a trust is established by operation Of law in favor of the person to whom the
funds belong.
Art. 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by
force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from
whom the property comes.
In Rodrigo v. Arcilla,105 this court held that a constructive trust was created when
petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Vicente Sauza, got respondent's parents, Ramon
Daomilas and Lucia Nagac, "to sign a document which he represented to them as a deed
'evidencing their status as adjoining landowners' but was actually a document disclaiming
their ownership over [the subject lot] and transferring the same to [Sauza]."
84.G.R. No. 199990-February 4, 2015 SPOUSES ROLANDO and HERMINIA

SALVADOR, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ROGELIO AND ELIZABETH RABAJA and
ROSARIO GONZALES, Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
Even on the substantial aspect, the petition does not warrant consideration. The Court
agrees with the courts below in finding that the contract entered into by the parties was
essentially a contract of sale which could be validly rescinded. Spouses Salvador insist that
they did not receive the payments made by Spouses Rabaja from Gonzales which totalled
₱950,000.00 and that Gonzales was not their duly authorized agent. These contentions,
however, must fail in light of the applicable provisions of the New Civil Code which state:
Art. 1900. So far as third persons are concerned, an act is deemed to have been performed
within the scope of the agent's authority, if such act is within the terms of the power of
attorney, as written, even if the agent has in fact exceeded the limits of his authority
according to an understanding between the principal and the agent.
xxxx
Art. 1902. A third person with whom the agent wishes to contract on behalf of the principal
may require the presentation of the power of attorney, or the instructions as regards the
agency. Private or secret orders and instructions of the principal do not prejudice third
persons who have relied upon the power of attorney or instructions shown them.
Art. 1910. The principal must comply with all the obligations which the agent may have
contracted within the scope of his authority.
Persons dealing with an agent must ascertain not only the fact of agency, but also the
nature and extent of the agent’s authority. A third person with whom the agent wishes to
contract on behalf of the principal may require the presentation of the power of attorney, or
the instructions as regards the agency. The basis for agency is representation and a person
dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover on his own peril the authority of
the agent.
85.G.R. No. 181293-February 23, 2015 ANA THERESIA "RISA" HONTIVEROS-

BARAQUEL, DANIEL L. EDRALIN, VICTOR M. GONZALES, SR., JOSE APOLLO R.
ADO, RENE D. SORIANO, ALLIANCE OF PROGRESSIVE LABOR, BUKLURAN NG
MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO, LAHING PILIPINO MULTIPURPOSE TRANSPORT
SERVICE COOPERATIVE, PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(PSCEU), and PNCC TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & SECURITY DEPARTMENT
WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTMSDWO), Petitioners, vs. TOLL REGULATORY
BOARD, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC), PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, SKYWAY O & M CORPORATION,
and CITRA METRO MANILA TOLLWAYS CORP., Respondents.
SERENO, CJ:
A joint venture is an association of companies jointly undertaking a commercial endeavor,

with all of them contributing assets and sharing risks, profits, and losses. It is hardly
distinguishable from a partnership considering that their elements are similar and, thus,
generally governed by the law on partnership.
86.GR. No. 205867- February 23, 2015 MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA, represented

by JOVIER TAGUFA, Petitioner, vs. GREGORIA TAGUFA, ROBERTO TAGUFA
and ROGELIO LUMABAN, Respondents.
Article 1456 provides:
ARTICLE 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is,
by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from
whom the property comes.
87.G.R. No. 203466- February 25, 2015 CHERRY ANN M. BENABAYE, Petitioner,
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
There is an essential distinction between the possession of a receiving teller of funds
received from third persons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives the proceeds of
sales of merchandise delivered to him in agency by his principal. In the former case,
payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself; the teller is a mere
custodian or keeper of the funds received, and has no independent right or title to retain or
possess the same as against the bank. An agent, on the other hand, can even assert, as
against his own principal, an independent, autonomous, right to retain the money or goods
received in consequence of the agency; as when the principal fails to reimburse him for
advances he has made, and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault.50
(Emphasis supplied; citations omitted).
88.G.R. No. 191945-March 11, 2015 NATIONAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.

SOCORRO T. POSADA, RENATO BUENO, ALICE BALIN, ADRIAN TABLIZO,
TEOFILO TABLIZO, and LYDIA T. OLIVO, substituted by her heirs, ALFREDO
M. OLIVO, ALICIA O. SALAZAR, ANITA O. ORDONO, ANGELITA O. LIM, AND
ADELFA O. ESPINAS, Respondents.
LEONEN, J.:
The predicament of petitioners involves a constructive trust, one that is akin to the implied
trust referred to in Art. 1454 of the Civil Code, "If an absolute conveyance of property is
made in order to secure the performance of an obligation of the grantor toward the grantee,
a trust by virtue of law is established. If the fulfillment of the obligation is offered by the
grantor when it becomes due, he may demand the reconveyance of the property to him." In
the case at bar, petitioners conveyed Lots Nos. 916 and 920 to the government with the
latter obliging itself to use the realties for the expansion of Lahug Airport; failing to keep its
bargain, the government can be compelled by petitioners to reconvey the parcels of land to
them, otherwise, petitioners would be denied the use of their properties upon a state of
affairs that was not conceived nor contemplated when the expropriation was authorized.
Although the symmetry between the instant case and the situation contemplated by Art.
1454 is not perfect, the provision is undoubtedly applicable. For, as explained by an expert
on the law of trusts: "The only problem of great importance in the field of constructive
trusts is to decide whether in the numerous and varying fact situations presented to the
courts there is a wrongful holding of property and hence a threatened unjust enrichment of
the defendant." Constructive trusts are fictions of equity which are bound by no unyielding
formula when they are used by courts as devices to remedy any situation in which the
holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest.
89.G.R. No. 195661- March 11, 2015 UNKNOWN OWNER OF THE VESSEL MN
CHINA JOY, SAMSUN SHIPPING LTD., and INTER-ASIA MARINE TRANSPORT,
INC., Petitioners, vs. ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Respondent.
The prima facie evidence of defendants’ negligence, being unexplained and uncontroverted,
is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. Hence, the negligence of the Master of the
Vessel is conclusively presumed to be the proximate cause of the damage sustained by
ATI’s unloader. Moreover, since the Master’s liability is ultimately that of the shipowner
because he is the representative of the shipowner, the shipowner and its agents are
solidarily liable to pay ATI the amount of damages actually proved.
Articles 587 and 590 under Book III of the Code of Commerce provide for the liability of the
shipowner and its agents for acts of the Master or Captain, as follows:
Art. 587. The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of third
persons which may arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which he
loaded on the vessel; but he may exempt himself therefrom by abandoning the vessel with
all her equipment and the freight it may have earned during the voyage.
90.GR. No. 201427-March 18, 2015 TEOFILO B. ADOLFO, Petitioner, vs. FE T.

ADOLFO, Respondent.
The principle of estoppel bars him from denying the resultant pronouncement by the
appellate court, which became final and executory, that the subject property is respondent’s
paraphernal property. "In estoppel, a person, who by his deed or conduct has induced
another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent position,
attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another. It further bars
him from denying the truth of a fact which has, in the contemplation of law, become settled
by the acts and proceeding of judicial or legislative officers or by the act of the party
himself, either by conventional writing or by representations, express or implied or in pais.
91.G.R. No. 167134-March 18, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. TRADERS ROYAL BANK, Respondent. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
In the said contract of trust under the Civil Code, there is only an equitable transfer of
ownership by the trustor to the trustee, the trustor retains his legal title to the subject
property. On the other hand, in the bank’s "trust agreement," once the specific funds or
properties of the trustor are placed under the common trust fund, there is a complete
transfer of ownership from the trustor to the trustee-bank. It is manifested by the fact that
said funds or properties may be invested by the bank in whatever manner it may deem
necessary, the trustor has no control whatsoever over his funds. Another point of distinction
between the two contracts is that, in the contract of trust every transaction involving the
trust property must be entered into by the trustee for the benefit of the trustor or his
designated beneficiary; while in the bank’s "trust agreement," all benefits from the
transactions involving properties from the common trust fund will be received solely by the
trustee-bank, the trustor’s only consolation is limited to receiving higher rate of interest
from his property. In effect, the subject "trust agreement" although termed as such is but a
form of a deposit.
The fact that the subject trust agreement is evidenced by a "confirmation of participation"
and not by a certificate of deposit is immaterial. As discussed above, what is important and
controlling is the nature or meaning conveyed by the document and not the particular label
or nomenclature attached to it, inasmuch as its substance is paramount than its form.
Therefore, the examiners are correct in imposing documentary stamp tax on the bank’s
"trust agreements.
92.G.R. No. 180771-April 21, 2015 RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE
PROTECTED SEASCAPE TAÑON STRAIT, e.g., TOOTHED WHALES, DOLPHINS,
PORPOISES, AND OTHER CETACEAN SPECIES, Joined in and Represented
herein by Human Beings Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio,
In Their Capacity as Legal Guardians of the Lesser Life-Forms and as
Responsible Stewards of God's Creations, Petitioners, vs. SECRETARY
ANGELO REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy
(DOE), SECRETARY JOSE L. ATIENZA, in his capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), LEONARDO R.
SIBBALUCA, DENR Regional Director-Region VII and in his capacity as
Chairperson of the Tañon Strait Protected Seascape Management Board,
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), DIRECTOR MALCOLM J.
SARMIENTO, JR., BFAR Regional Director for Region VII ANDRES M. BOJOS,
JAPAN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), as represented by its
Philippine Agent, SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES, INC. Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 181527 CENTRAL VISAYAS FISHERFOLK DEVELOPMENT CENTER

(FIDEC), CERILO D. ENGARCIAL, RAMON YANONG, FRANCISCO LABID, in
their personal capacity and as representatives of the SUBSISTENCE
FISHERFOLKS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES OF ALOGUINSAN AND
PINAMUNGAJAN, CEBU, AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND THE PRESENT AND
FUTURE GENERATIONS OF FILIPINOS WHOSE RIGHTS ARE SIMILARLY
AFFECTED, Petitioners, vs. SECRETARY ANGELO REYES, in his capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE), JOSE L. ATIENZA, in his
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), LEONARDO R. SIBBALUCA, in his capacity as DENR
Regional Director-Region VII and as Chairperson of the Tañon Strait
Protected Seascape Management Board, ALAN ARRANGUEZ, in his capacity
as Director - Environmental Management Bureau-Region VII, DOE Regional
Director for Region VIII1 ANTONIO LABIOS, JAPAN PETROLEUM
EXPLORATION CO., LTD. (JAPEX), as represented by its Philippine Agent,
SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., Respondents.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Moreover, Section 128 of the Corporation Code provides for the responsibilities and duties
of a resident agent of a foreign corporation:
SECTION 128. Resident agent; service of process. - The Securities and Exchange
Commission shall require as a condition precedent to the issuance of the license to transact
business in the Philippines by any foreign corporation that such corporation file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a written power of attorney designating some person
who must be a resident of the Philippines, on whom any summons and other legal processes
may be served in all actions or other legal proceedings against such corporation, and
consenting that service upon such resident agent shall be admitted and held as valid as if
served upon the duly authorized officers of the foreign corporation at its home office. Any
such foreign corporation shall likewise execute and file with the Securities and Exchange
Commission an agreement or stipulation, executed by the proper authorities of said
corporation, in form and substance as follows:
"The (name of foreign corporation) does hereby stipulate and agree, in consideration of its
being granted by the Securities and Exchange Commission a license to transact business in
the Philippines, that if at any time said corporation shall cease to transact business in the
Philippines, or shall be without any resident agent in the Philippines on whom any summons
or other legal processes may be served, then in any action or proceeding arising out of any
business or transaction which occurred in the Philippines, service of any summons or other
legal process may be made upon the Securities and Exchange Commission and that such
service shall have the same force and effect as if made upon the duly-authorized officers of
the corporation at its home office."
Whenever such service of summons or other process shall be made upon the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Commission shall, within ten (10) days thereafter, transmit by
mail a copy of such summons or other legal process to the corporation at its home or
principal office. The sending of such copy by the Commission shall be a necessary part of
and shall complete such service. All expenses incurred by the Commission for such service
shall be paid in advance by the party at whose instance the service is made.
In case of a change of address of the resident agent, it shall be his or its duty to
immediately notify in writing the Securities and Exchange Commission of the new address.
It is clear from the foregoing provision that the function of a resident agent is to receive
summons or legal processes that may be served in all actions or other legal proceedings
against the foreign corporation. These cases have been prosecuted in the name of JAPEX
Company, Ltd., and JAPEX Philippines Ltd., as its branch office and resident agent, had been
receiving the various resolutions from this Court, as evidenced by Registry Return Cards
signed by its representatives.
93.G.R. No. 179874-June 22, 2015 ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO, VIRGINIA DIO,
RENATO DIO, and HEIRS OF ROBERTO DIO, represented by ROGER DIO,
Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES MARIA JERERA AND EBON LATAGAN, substituted by
his heirs, namely: MA. JANELITA LATAGAN-BULAWAN, YVONNE LATAGAN,
LESLIE LATAGAN, RODOLFO H. LATAGAN, EMMANUEL NOEL H. LATAGAN,
GEMMA LATAGAN-DE LEON, MARIE GLEN LATAGAN-CERUJALES, and CELESTE
LATAGAN-BO; and SALVE VDA. DE JERERA, Respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
Art. 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by
force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from
whom the property comes.1âwphi1
In Heirs of Jose Olviga v. Court of Appeals,95 the Court explained when an action enforcing
an implied trust prescribes:
With regard to the issue of prescription, this Court has ruled a number of times before that
an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust
prescribes in ten years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or
the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property (Vda. de Portugal vs.
IAC, 159 SCRA 178). But this rule applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession of the
property, since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual possession of the
property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property,
does not prescribe.
94.G.R. No. 210551-June 30, 2015 JOSE J. FERRER, JR., Petitioner, vs. CITY
MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA, CITY COUNCIL OF QUEZON CITY, CITY
TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, and CITY ASSESSOR OF QUEZON
CITY, Respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute is
obvious. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local councils
exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as the national
lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise powers higher
than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local government units can undo
the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their power in the first place, and
negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute.
95.G.R. No. 207435-July 1, 2015 NORMA EDITA R. DY SUN-ONG, Petitioner, vs.

JOSE VICTORY R. DY SUN, Respondent.
CARPIO, J.:
Petitioner invokes Articles 1453 and 1457 of the Civil Code in claiming her alleged shares
from respondent. Said Articles read as follows:
Art. 1453. When property is conveyed to a person in reliance upon his declared intention to
hold it for, or transfer it to another or the grantor, there is an implied trust in favor of the
person whose benefit is contemplated.
Art. 1457. An implied trust may be proved by oral evidence.
Petitioner’s theory of her case relies upon implied trust under Article 1453. Petitioner further
states that the existence of implied trust prevents prescription from setting in because the
defense of prescription cannot be set up in an action to enforce trust.13 Petitioner is willing
to present evidence,14 such as letters between herself and respondent as well as checks
representing the cash dividends on the YPI shares, to prove that neither prescription nor
laches had set in.
Respondent, on the other hand, denies petitioner’s claim ofimplied trust and asserts that his
previous act of giving petitioner a share of the cash dividends on the YPI shares was pure
liberality on his part.15 Respondent insists that petitioner’s cause of action, if any, has
prescribed.
96.G.R. No. 200558- July 1, 2015 CONSUELO V. PANGASINAN and ANNABELLA

V. BORROMEO, Petitioners, vs. CRISTINA DISONGLOALMAZORA, RENILDA
ALMAZORA-CASUBUAN, RODOLFO CASUBUAN, SUSANA
ALMAZORAMENDIOLA, CARLOS MENDIOLA, CECILIO ALMAZORA and NENITA
ALMAZORA, Respondents.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
To determine the applicable period of extinctive prescription, the nature and circumstances
of the case should be considered. According to petitioners, the owner’s duplicate certificate
of title was given to Conrado for safekeeping in 1945. Allegedly, Conrado employed fraud
and bad faith when he drafted the Adjudication and Absolute Sale of a Parcel of Registered
Land39 on January 9, 1949, and transferred the title of the land to his name with the
issuance of TCT No. 3528240 on June 17, 1965; and because of the purported fraud
committed by Conrado against petitioners, an implied constructive trust was created by
operation of law, with Conrado as trustee and Aurora as cestui que trust.
Constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands
of justice and prevent unjust enrichment.41 Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides that a
person acquiring property through fraud becomes, by operation of law, a trustee of an
implied trust for the benefit of the real owner of the property.42 It is now well-settled that
the prescriptive period to recover property obtained by fraud or mistake, giving rise to an
implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, is 10 years pursuant to Article 1144.43
The prescriptive period to enforce the constructive trust shall be counted from the alleged
fraudulent registration or date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property.44 The
ten-year prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey the property
as when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property
97.G.R. No. 181517-July 6, 2015 GREEN STAR EXPRESS, INC. and FRUTO
SAYSON, JR., Petitioners,vs. NISSIN-UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION,
Respondent.
It is a well-established rule that the rules on service of summons upon a domestic private
juridical entity must be strictly complied with. Otherwise, the court cannot be said to have
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.5
NURC maintains that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over it as the summons was
received by its cost accountant, Francis Tinio.1âwphi1 It argues that under Section 11, Rule
14 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which provides the rule on service of summons upon a
juridical entity, in cases where the defendant is a domestic corporation like NURC, summons
may be served only through its officers.6 Thus:
Section 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. – When the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a
juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.7
This provision replaced the former Section 13, Rule 14 of the 1964 Rules of Court which
read:
Section 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. - If the defendant is a
corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered,
service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its
directors
98.G.R. No. 181381 -July 20, 2015 SECURITIES and EXCHANGE

COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. UNIVERSAL RIGHTFIELD PROPERTY
HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.
PERALTA, J.:
Under its regulatory responsibilities, the SEC may pass upon applications for, or may
suspend or revoke (after due notice and hearing), certificates of registration of corporations,
partnerships and associations (excluding cooperatives, homeowners associations, and labor
unions); compel legal and regulatory compliances; conduct inspections; and impose fines or
other penalties for violations of the Revised Securities Act, as well as implementing rules
and directives of the SEC, such as may be warranted.
Relative to its adjudicative authority, the SEC has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide controversies and cases involving
a. Intra-corporate and partnership relations between or among the corporation,

officers and stockholders and partners, including their elections or appointments;
b. State and corporate affairs in relation to the legal existence of corporations,

partnerships and associations or to their franchises; and
c. Investors and corporate affairs particularly in respect of devices and schemes,

such as fraudulent practices, employed by directors, officers, business associates,
and/or other stockholders, partners, or members of registered firms; x x x
99.G.R. No. 186305- July 22, 2015 V-GENT, INC., Petitioner, vs. MORNING STAR
TRAVEL and TOURS, INC., Respondent.
BRION, J.:
Thus an agent may sue or be sued solely in its own name and without joining the principal
when the following elements concur: (1) the agent acted in his own name during the
transaction; (2) the agent acted for the benefit of an undisclosed principal; and (3) the
transaction did not involve the property of the principal.
When these elements are present, the agent becomes bound as if the transaction were its
own. This rule is consistent with Article 1883 of the Civil Code which says:
Art. 1883. If an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right of action against the
persons with whom the agent has contracted; neither have such persons against the
principal. In such case, the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the person with whom
he has contracted, as if the transaction were his own, except when the contract involves
things belonging to the principal.
The provisions of this article shall be understood to be without prejudice to the actions
between the principal and agent.
100. G.R. No. 212045 WILSON GO and PETER GO, Petitioners, vs. THE
ESTATE OF THE LATE FELISA TAMIO DE BUENA VENTURA, represented by
RESURRECCION A. BIHIS, RHEA A. BIHIS, and REGINA A. BIHIS; and
RESURRECCION A. BIHIS, RHEA A. BIHIS and REGINA A. BIHIS, in their
personal capacities, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
101. G.R. No. 211972-July 22, 2015 ELLA A. GUERRERO, DELFIN A.

GUERRERO, JR. and LESTER ALVIN A. GUERRERO, Petitioners, vs. THE
ESTATE OF THE LATE FELISA TAMIO DE BUENA VENTURA, herein represented
by RESURRECION A. BIHIS, RHEA A. BIHIS and REGINA A. BIHIS, and
RESURRECION A. BIHIS, RHEA A. BIHIS and REGINA A. BIHIS, in their
personal capacities, Respondents.
Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to which is vested in
the benefit of the beneficiary.1âwphi1 Trust relations between parties may either be express
or implied. An express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties, while
an implied trust comes into being by operation of law.
Express trusts are created by direct and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or
deed, or will, or by words either expressly or impliedly evincing an intention to create a
trust. Under Article 1444 of the Civil Code, "[n]o particular words are required for the
creation of an express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended." It is possible
to create a trust without using the word "trust" or "trustee." Conversely, the mere fact that
these words are used does not necessarily indicate an intention to create a trust. The
question in each case is whether the trustor manifested an intention to create the kind of
relationship which to lawyers is known as trust. It is immaterial whether or not he knows
that the relationship which he intends to create is called a trust, and whether or not he
knows the precise characteristics of the relationship which is called a trust.4
102. G.R. No. 210554- August 5, 2015 DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU,
WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WOO YUKIMTENG,
SANTOS YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO YU LIM, Petitioners vs. ATTY.
WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY. JOVITO GAMBOL,
AND ATTY. DAN REYNALD R. MAGAT, practicing law under the Firm name,
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat, and JUDGE OFELIA L. CALO, Presiding Judge
of Branch 211 of the Regional Trial Court, Mandaluyong City, Respondents
Article 1815 of the Civil Code shows that the partners in a partnership should be "living
persons who can be subjected to liability." Further, the use of a deceased partner's name is
not a custom in the Philippines.
103. G.R. No. 227896, January 29, 2020 - ROBERTO R. IGNACIO AND
TERESA R. IGNACIO DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE TERESA
R. IGNACIO ENTERPRISES, Petitioners, V. MYRNA P. RAGASA AND AZUCENA
B. ROA, Respondents.
Here, as aptly ruled by the CA, the proximity in time between the meetings held by the
respondents and Woodridge and the subsequent execution of the joint venture agreements
leads to a logical conclusion that it was the respondents who brokered it. Likewise, it is
inconsequential that the authority of the respondents as brokers had already
expired when the joint venture agreements over the subject properties were
executed. The negotiation for these transactions began during the effectivity of the
authority of the respondents, and these were carried out through their efforts. Thus, the
respondents are entitled to a commission.
104. G.R. No. 185129, June 17, 2013 - ABELARDO JANDUSAY, Petitioner,
Vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
“It cannot be denied that the accused-appellant, as Treasurer of CALAPUPATODA, received

and held money for administration and in trust for the association. He was thus under an
obligation to turnover the same upon the conclusion of his term as Treasurer.
Instead, however, he misappropriated the same to the prejudice of the association and,
despite demand, failed to account for or return them. Such failure to account, upon
demand, of funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation.”
105. G.R. No. 181844, September 29, 2010 - SPS. FELIPE and JOSEFA
PARINGIT, Petitioner, vs. MARCIANA PARINGIT BAJIT, ADOLIO PARINGIT
and ROSARIO PARINGIT ORDOÑO, Respondents.
“Implied trust under Article 1450 presupposes a situation where a person, using
his own funds, buys property on behalf of another, who in the meantime may not
have the funds to purchase it. Title to the property is for the time being placed in the
name of the trustee, the person who pays for it, until he is reimbursed by the beneficiary,
the person for whom the trustee bought the land. It is only after the beneficiary reimburses
the trustee of the purchase price that the former can compel conveyance of the property
from the latter.”
106. G.R. No. 176959, September 8, 2010 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, INC. (as successor-in-interest of the banking operations of Global
Business Bank, Inc. formerly known as PHILIPPINE BANKING
CORPORATION), Petitioner, vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RIVERSIDE
MILLS CORPORATION PROVIDENT AND RETIREMENT FUND, represented by
ERNESTO TANCHI, JR., CESAR SALIGUMBA, AMELITA SIMON, EVELINA
OCAMPO and CARLITOS Y. LIM, RMC UNPAID EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
INC., and THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARIES OF THE PROVIDENT AND
RETIREMENT FUND OF RMC, Respondents.
“A trust is a "fiduciary relationship with respect to property which involves the existence of
equitable duties imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal with it for the
benefit of another." A trust is either express or implied. Express trusts are those
which the direct and positive acts of the parties create, by some writing or deed,
or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a trust.”
107. G.R. No. 157852, December 15, 2010 - HEIRS OF DOMINGO

VALIENTES, Petitioners, vs. Hon. REINERIO (Abraham) B. RAMAS, Acting
Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 29, 9th Judicial Region, San Miguel,
Zamboanga del Sur and Vilma V. Minor, Respondents.
“Yet, the right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust is not
absolute nor is it imprescriptible. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years from the issuance of the
Torrens title over the property.”
108. G.R. No. 205867, February 23, 2015 - MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA,

represented by JOVIER TAGUFA, Petitioner, vs. GREGORIA TAGUFA,
ROBERTO TAGUFA and ROGELIO LUMABAN, Respondents.
“A recognized exception is that situation where plaintiff-claimant seeks direct reconveyance

from defendant of public land unlawfully and in breach of trust titled by him, on the principle
of enforcement of a constructive trust.”
109. G.R. No. 173120, April 10, 2019 - SPOUSES YU HWA PING and MARY
GAW, Petitioner, vs. AYALA LAND, INC., Respondents.
“A Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud, notwithstanding the long-standing rule
that registration is a constructive notice of title binding upon the whole world. The legal
principle is that if the registration of the land is fraudulent, the person in whose
name the land is registered holds it as a mere trustee.”
110. G.R. No. 213207. February 15, 2022 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, VS. PASIG RIZAL CO., INC.,* Respondent.
“A trustee on behalf of the principal may apply for original registration of any land held in
trust by the trustee, unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust.”
111. G.R. No. 185592, June 15, 2015 - GEORGE C. FONG, Petitioner, vs.
JOSE V. DUEÑAS, Respondent.
“At the outset, the Court notes that the parties’ joint venture agreement to incorporate a
company that would hold the shares of Danton and Bakcom and that would serve as the
business vehicle for their food enterprise, is a valid agreement. The failure to reduce the
agreement to writing does not affect its validity or enforceability as there is no law
or regulation which provides that an agreement to incorporate must be in writing.”
112. G.R. No. 217777, August 16, 2017 - PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, Petitioner,
vs. LEONORA O. MIARAL,, Respondent.
“Thus, even assuming that a contract of partnership was indeed entered into by
and between the parties, we have ruled that when money or property [had] been
received by a partner for a specific purpose (such as that obtaining in the instant
case) and he later misappropriated it, such partner is guilty of estafa xxx Accused
failed to present evidence to show the existence of a business partnership apart from
relying on the Agreement dated March 6, 1996. Neither was there any evidence presented
showing that complainant's money was used to purchase garments to be sold abroad. Basic
is the rule that one who alleges must prove. In this case, the accused failed to establish, by
clear and convincing evidence, their defense of partnership.”
113. G.R. No. 242087. December 07, 2021 - MA. JULIETA* B. BENDECIO
AND MERLYN MASCARIÑAS, Petitioners, VS. VIRGINIA B. BAUTISTA,
Respondent.
“Bendecio and Mascariñas may insist on denying their liability, but they can no longer
renounce their admissions that they were, indeed, business partners who obtained a loan
for their business. Article 182533 of the Civil Code provides that when a person
represents himself to anyone as a partner in a partnership, he is liable to such
person who has given credit to the partnership. As such, both Bendecio and
Mascariñas must be held liable to Bautista. As to the extent of their liability, again, this
Court finds that the RTC and the CA correctly held Bendecio and Mascariñas solidarily liable
to pay the loan.”
114. G.R. No. 209090, September 23, 2020 - Philippine Development

Alternatives Foundation, Inc. [formerly Technology Resources Center
Foundation, Inc.] v. Fortune ,, Tobacco Corporation)
“There was no intention• to create a trust as evinced by the direct and positive acts of the
parties, by ' some writing, or by oral declaration in words. Neither is there implied trust -
whether resulting or constructive. A resulting trust is always presumed to have been
contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which can be found in the nature
of their transaction although not expressed in a deed or instrument of conveyance.
A resulting trust is based on •the equitable doctrine that it is the more valuable
consideration than the legal title that determines the equitable interest property. It arises
where, there being no fraud or violation of the ' circumstances indicate intent of the parties
that legal title in one be held for the benefit of another. It also arises in some instances as
where property, for example, is gratuitously conveyed for a particular purpose and that
purpose is either fulfilled or frustrated, the court may affirm the resulting trust in favor of:
the grantor or transferor, where the beneficial interest in property was not"
115. G.R. No. 169901, August 3, 2011 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,

Petitioner,
vs.CIRIACO JUMAMOY and HEIRS OF ANTONIO GO PACE, represented by
ROSALIA PACE, Respondents
"If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by
force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person
from whom the property comes."30 An action for reconveyance based on implied trust
prescribes in 10 years as it is an obligation created by law, 31 to be counted from the date of
issuance of the Torrens title over the property.32 This rule, however, applies only when the
plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property.”
116. G.R. No. 178782, September 21, 2011 - JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT,

Petitioner,
vs. PROSENCIO D. JASO and EDEN G. JASO, Respondents.
“In the case of a dissolution of the partnership, the assignee is entitled to receive
his assignor’s interest and may require an account from the date only of the last
account agreed to by all the partners. From the foregoing provision, it is evident that
"(t)he transfer by a partner of his partnership interest does not make the assignee of such
interest a partner of the firm, nor entitle the assignee to interfere in the management of the
partnership business or to receive anything except the assignee’s profits. The assignment
does not purport to transfer an interest in the partnership, but only a future contingent right
to a portion of the ultimate residue as the assignor may become entitled to receive by virtue
of his proportionate interest in the capital.”
117. G.R. No. 246096, January 13, 2021 - SPOUSES BENNY AND NORMITA
ROL, Petitioners, VS. ISABEL URDAS RACHO,* Respondent.
“The co-ownership is dissolved and, in effect, each of the former co-owners is free to
exercise autonomously the rights attached to his or her ownership over the definite portion
of the land. It is crucial that the co-owners agree to which portion of the land goes to
whom. Hence, prior to partition, a sale of a definite portion of common property requires
the consent of all co-owners because it operates to partition the land with respect to the co-
owner selling his or her share. The co-owner or seller is already marking which portion
should redound to his or her autonomous ownership upon future partition.”
118. G.R. No. 154486, December 1, 2010 - FEDERICO JARANTILLA, JR.,

Petitioner, vs. ANTONIETA JARANTILLA, BUENAVENTURA REMOTIGUE,
substituted by CYNTHIA REMOTIGUE, DOROTEO JARANTILLA and TOMAS
JARANTILLA, Respondents.
“There is a co-ownership when an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. 34 It

is a partnership when two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money,
among themselves.”
119. G.R. No. 177382, February 17, 2016 - VIVA SHIPPING LINES, INC.,
Petitioner,
vs. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES MINING, INC., METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CITY OF
BATANGAS, CITY OF LUCENA, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, ALEJANDRO OLIT,
NIDA MONTILLA, PIO HERNANDEZ, EUGENIO BACULO, and HARLAN
BACALTOS, Respondents.
“Corporate rehabilitation is a remedy for corporations, partnerships, and

associations "who [foresee] the impossibility of meeting [their] debts when they
respectively fall due."94 A corporation under rehabilitation continues with its corporate life
and activities to achieve solvency,95 or a position where the corporation is able to pay its
obligations as they fall due in the ordinary course of business. Solvency is a state where the
businesses’ liabilities are less than its assets.”
120. G.R. No. 172690, March 3, 2010 - HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, represented by
ELENITO LIM, Petitioners, vs. JULIET VILLA LIM, Respondent.
“A partnership exists when two or more persons agree to place their money,
effects, labor, and skill in lawful commerce or business, with the understanding
that there shall be a proportionate sharing of the profits and losses among them. A
contract of partnership is defined by the Civil Code as one where two or more persons bind
themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention
of dividing the profits among themselves.12 Undoubtedly, the best evidence would have
been the contract of partnership or the articles of partnership.”
121. G.R. No. 169757, November 23, 2011 - CESAR C. LIRIO, doing
business under the name and style of CELKOR AD SONICMIX, Petitioner,
vs. WILMER D. GENOVIA, Respondent.
“On the other hand, Petitioner failed to prove that his relationship with Respondent was one
of partnership. Such claim was not supported by any written agreement. The Court notes
that in the payroll dated July 31, 2001 to March 15, 2002, 35 there were deductions from the
wages of Respondent for his absence from work, which negates Petitioner’s claim that the
wages paid were advances for Respondent’s work in the partnership.”
122. G.R. No. 216023, October 5, 2016 - DR. RESTITUTO C. BUENVIAJE,

Petitioner, VS. SPOUSES JOVITO R. AND LYDIA B. SALONGA, JEBSON
HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND FERDINAND JUAT BAÑEZ, Respondents.
“Article 1824. All partners are liable solidarily with the partnership for everything chargeable
to the partnership under Articles 1822 and 1823. xxx Evidently, the foregoing legal
provisions pertain to the obligations of a co-partner in the event that the
partnership to which he belongs is held liable. In this case, Buenviaje never dealt with
any partnership constituted by and between Jebson and Sps. Salonga. As previously
mentioned, the subject CTS, which was the source of the obligations relative to the
completion and delivery of Unit 5, solely devolved upon the person of Jebson. As there was
no partnership privy to any obligation to which Buenviaje is a creditor, Articles 1822 and
1824 of the Civil Code do not apply.”
123. G.R. No. 202414, June 4, 2014 - JOSEPHINE WEE, Petitioner,

vs.FELICIDAD MARDO, Respondent.
“A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property
described therein. It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner; nor
can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud: neither does it permit one
to enrich himself at the expense of others. Its issuance in favor of a particular person
does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not
named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered
owner.
124. G.R. 183374, June 29, 2010 - MARSMAN DRYSDALE LAND, INC,
Petitioner vs. PHILIPPINE GEOANALYTICS, INC AND GOTESCO PROPERTIES,
INC., Respondents.
“A joint venture being a form of partnership, it is to be governed by the laws on

shall also receive a share in the profits in proportion to his capital.”
125. G.R. No. 232663, May 03, 2021 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, Petitioner, VS. SPOUSES REMIGIO P. MAGAAN AND LETICIA L.
MAGAAN, Respondents.
“A taxable partnership has a separate juridical personality from its partners and is
liable for income taxation. Without clear and convincing proof that the taxpayers
received taxable income personally, or through the partnership, no intention to evade
payment of taxes may be inferred.”
126. G.R. No. 196733, November 21, 2018 - HEIRS OF ROGER JARQUE,
Petitioners, VS. MARCIAL JARQUE, LELIA JARQUE-LAGSIT, AND TERESITA
JARQUE-BAILON, Respondents.
“Under the Old Civil Code, the default property regime of the husband and wife is
the conjugal partnership of gains.34 This includes: (1) property acquired for a valuable
consideration during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the
acquisition is made for the partnership or for one of the spouses only; (2) property obtained
by the industry, wages or work of the spouses or of either of them; and (3) the fruits,
income, or interest collected or accrued during the marriage, derived from the partnership
property, or from that which belongs separately to either of the spouses. 35 Unless proved
otherwise, properties acquired during the marriage are considered partnership property.”
“Upon the death of either spouse, the conjugal partnership is dissolved. The surviving
spouse is entitled to his or her 112 share in the partnership, 37 while the remaining half
belongs to the estate of the deceased which will be inherited by his forced heirs.”
127. G.R. No. 180323, September 16, 2015 - PURINA PHILIPPINES, INC., 1,
Petitioner,
vs. HON. WALDO Q. FLORES, in His capacity as Senior Deputy Executive
Secretary of the Office of the President, and NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY,
Respondents.
“P.D. 194 authorizes aliens, as well as associations, corporations or partnerships

owned in whole or in part by foreigners to engage in the rice and com industry.
The decree is a departure from R.A. 3018, which commands that the right to engage in the
rice and com industry be limited to citizens of the Philippines and associations, corporations
or partnerships whose capital or capital stock is wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines.
Whereas R.A. 3018 effectively eschews foreign participation in the rice and corn industry in
any degree, P.D. 194 endeavors to attract foreign investments that would help develop
lands for cultivating rice and corn in the country. 51 While P.D. 194 authorizes the issuance of
licenses to aliens and business organizations to allow them to engage in the rice and corn
industry,52 R.A. 3018 prohibits it.”
128. G.R. No. 163959. August 1, 2018 - MARCELINO E. LOPEZ, FELIZA

LOPEZ, ZOILO LOPEZ, LEONARDO LOPEZ, and SERGIO F. ANGELES,
Petitioners vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PRIMEX CORPORATION,
Respondents
“One of the modes of extinguishing a contract of agency is by the death of either

the principal or the agent.14 In Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation, 15 the
Court declared that because death of the principal extinguished the agency, it should follow
a fortiori that any act of the agent after the death of his principal should be held void ab
initio unless the act fell under the exceptions established under Article 1930 16 and Article
193117 of the Civil Code. The exceptions should be strictly construed. In other words, the
general rule is that the death of the principal or, by analogy, the agent extinguishes the
contract of agency, unless any of the circumstances provided for under Article 193 0 or
Article 1931 obtains; in which case, notwithstanding the death of either principal or agent,
the contract of agency continues to exist.”
129. G.R. No. 237246, July 24, 2019 - HAYDEN KHO, SR., Petitioner vs.
DOLORES G. MAGBANUA, MARILYN S. MERCADO,* ARCHIMEDES** B. CALUB,
MARIA E. ONGOTAN, FRANCISCO J. DUQUE, MERLE *** G. RIVERA; DOLORES A.
PULIDO, PAULINO R. BALANGATAN, JR., ANAFEL L. ESCROPOLO, PERCIVAL
A. DEINLA, **** JERRY C. ZABALA, ROGELIO C. ONGONION, JR., HELEN B.
DELA CRUZ, CENON JARDIN, and ROVILLA L. CATALAN, *****, Respondents
“It is settled that a corporation is a juridical entity with legal personality separate
and distinct from those acting for and in its behalf and, in general, from the people
comprising it.39 As a juridical entity, a corporation may act only through its
directors, officers, and employees. As such, obligations incurred by the
corporation, acting through its directors, officers, and employees, are its sole
liabilities, 40 and these persons should not be held jointly and solidarily liable with
the corporation.41 However, being a mere fiction of law, this corporate veil can be pierced
when such corporate fiction is used: (a) to defeat public convenience or as a vehicle for the
evasion of an existing obligation; (b) to justify wrong, protect or perpetuate fraud, defend
crime, or as a shield to confuse legitimate issues; 42 or (c) as a mere alter ego or business
conduit of a person, or is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to
make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit, or adjunct of another corporation.
130. G.R. No. 174978, July 31, 2013 - SALLY YOSHIZAKI, Petitioner, vs.
JOY TRAINING CENTER OF AURORA, INC., Respondent.
“As a general rule, a contract of agency may be oral. However, it must be written
when the law requires a specific form. 33 Specifically, Article 1874 of the Civil Code
provides that the contract of agency must be written for the validity of the sale of a piece of
land or any interest therein. Otherwise, the sale shall be void. A related provision, Article
1878 of the Civil Code, states that special powers of attorney are necessary to convey real
rights over immovable properties.”
131. G.R. No. 228999, April 28, 2021 - ANA DE JOYA AND CIRIACO DE
JOYA, LERMA R. CASTILLO AND MARIO CASTILLO, SPOUSES DOMINGO
CORDERO AND LEONCIA CORDERO, AND RICARDO VILLALOBOS, AS THE
SURVIVING HEIRS OF SPOUSES EUFRONIO CORDERO AND TARCILA C.
CORDERO, Petitioners, VS. FRANCISCO P. MADLANGBAYAN, SUBSTITUTED
BY RODESINDA F. MADLANGBAYAN AND MARIA LOURDES M. MONTALBO,
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS, SPOUSES
ROLANDO DALIDA AND MARIA FLORITA DALIDA, SPOUSES GEORGE GULLET
AND CONCHITA GULLET, SPOUSES ROSENDO RAMOS AND ISABELITA
RAMOS, RENATO GO, CHOLLIE MAGNAYE-GO, VENECIO H. MAGNAYE,
CRISTETA SALCEDOMAGNAYE AND JAYSON MAGNAYE, Respondents.
“A contract of agency is extinguished by its revocation.73 As agency is a personal
contract of representation that is based on the trust and confidence reposed by the principal
upon the agent,74 it may be revoked by the principal at will. 75 The withdrawal of such
authority by the principal may either be express or implied.”
“A contract of agency is personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The authority of

the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal. The agent is the
extension of the principal only insofar as acts performed by him that are within the scope of
his authority.77 By way of exception, a principal may be bound by the agent's acts
performed beyond the scope of his authority, in case of express or implied ratification.
Ratification, however, demands that the principal has full knowledge of all the material facts
or should have knowledge thereof in view of circumstances which invites "a reasonably
prudent man" to conduct an inquiry.”
132. G.R. No. 205998, April 24, 2017 - WILLIAM ANGIDAN SIY, Petitioner
vs. ALVIN TOMLIN, Respondent
“Under the Civil Code on agency, Art. 1869. Agency may be express, or implied from
the acts of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to
authority. Agency may be oral, unless the law requires a specific form.
Art. 1870. Acceptance by the agent may also be express or implied from his acts which
carry out the agency, or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances.”
"The basis of agency is representation and the same may be constituted expressly or
impliedly. In an implied agency, the principal can be bound by the acts of the implied agent.
"35 The same is true with an oral agency.”
133. G.R. No. 192602, January 18, 2017 - SPOUSES MAY S. VILLALUZ and
JOHNNY VILLALUZ, JR., Petitioners vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and
the REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR DAVAO CITY, Respondents
“The law creates a presumption that an agent has the power to appoint a
substitute. The consequence of the presumption is that, upon valid appointment of a
substitute by the agent, there ipso jure arises an agency relationship between the principal
and the substitute, i.e., the substitute becomes the agent of the principal. As a result, the
principal is bound by the acts of the substitute as if these acts had been performed by the
principal's appointed agent. Concomitantly, the substitute assumes an agent's obligations to
act within the scope of authority, 18 to act in accordance with the principal's instructions, 19
and to carry out the agency, 20 among others. In order to make the presumption inoperative
and relieve himself from its effects, it is incumbent upon the principal to prohibit the agent
from appointing a substitute.”
134. G.R. No. 227990, March 7, 2018 - CITYSTATE SAVINGS BANK,
Petitioner vs. TERESITA TOBIAS and SHELLIDIE VALDEZ, Respondents
“The doctrine of apparent authority or what is sometimes referred to as the

"holding out" theory, or the doctrine of ostensible agency, imposes liability, not
"as the result of the reality of a contractual relationship, but rather because of the
actions of a principal or an employer in somehow misleading the public into
believing that the relationship or the authority exists. xxx Succinctly stating the
foregoing principles, the liability of a bank to third persons for acts done by its agents or
employees is limited to the consequences of the latter's acts which it has ratified, or those
that resulted in performance of acts within the scope of actual or apparent authority it has
vested.”
135. G.R. 163825, July 13, 2010 - VIOLETA TUDTUD BANATE, MARY
MELGRID M. CORTEL, BONIFACIO CORTEL, ROSENDO MAGLASANG, and
PATROCINIA MONILAR, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL
BANK (LILOAN, CEBU), INC. and TEOFILO SOON, JR., Respondents.
“Under the doctrine of apparent authority, acts and contracts of the agent, as are
within the apparent scope of the authority conferred on him, although no actual
authority to do such acts or to make such contracts has been conferred, bind the
principal.20 The principal’s liability, however, is limited only to third persons who have been
led reasonably to believe by the conduct of the principal that such actual authority exists,
although none was given. In other words, apparent authority is determined only by the acts
of the principal and not by the acts of the agent. 21 There can be no apparent authority of an
agent without acts or conduct on the part of the principal; such acts or conduct must have
been known and relied upon in good faith as a result of the exercise of reasonable prudence
by a third party as claimant, and such acts or conduct must have produced a change of
position to the third party’s detriment.”
136. G.R. No. 202364, August 30, 2017 - ARTURO C. CALUBAD, Petitioner,
VS. RICARCEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
“When a corporation intentionally or negligently clothes its agent with apparent

authority to act in its behalf, it is estopped from denying its agent's apparent
authority as to innocent third parties who dealt with this agent in good faith.”
xxx
“The doctrine of apparent authority provides that even if no actual authority has been
conferred on an agent, his or her acts, as long as they are within his or her apparent scope
of authority, bind the principal. However, the principal's liability is limited to third persons
who are reasonably led to believe that the agent was authorized to act for the principal due
to the principal's conduct.”
137. G.R. No. 210043, September 26, 2018 - AYALA LAND, INC., Petitioner,
VS. ASB REALTY CORPORATION AND E.M. RAMOS & SONS, INC.,
Respondents.
“[U]nder the doctrine of apparent authority, the question in every case is whether the
principal has by his [/her] voluntary act placed the agent in such a situation that a person of
ordinary prudence, conversant with business usages and the nature of the particular
business, is justified in presuming that such agent has authority to perform the particular
act in question.”
138. G.R. No. 214057, October 19, 2015 - FLORENTINA BAUTISTA-SPILLE

represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Manuel B. Flores, Jr., Petitioner vs.
NICORP MANAGEMENT ND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BENJAMIN G.
BAUTISTA and INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK, Respondents
“The well-established rule is when a sale of a parcel of land or any interest therein
is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing, otherwise the
sale shall be void. To reiterate, such authority must be conferred in writing and must
express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language in order for the
principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell the real property. 23 It is a general rule that
a power of attorney must be strictly construed, and courts will not infer or presume broad
powers from deeds which do not sufficiently include property or subject under which the
agent is to deal.24 Thus, when the authority is couched in general terms, without mentioning
any specific power to sell or mortgage or to do other specific acts of strict dominion, then
only acts of administration are deemed conferred.”
139. G.R. No. 204447, May 03, 2021 - MARIA MAGDALENA V. AROMIN
ALSO KNOWN AS MARIA V. AROMIN, Petitioner, VS. HEIRS OF SPOUSES
WILFREDO AND LEONILA SOMIS, NAMELY: WILFREDO A. SOMIS, JR.,
VIOLITA SOMIS-FLORES, ELEANOR SOMIS FLORES, OLIVE SOMIS DE
CASTRO, DELIA SOMIS-SORIANO, LALAINE SOMIS-DE LA CRUZ, CELSO A.
SOMIS, AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, Respondents.**
“The Compromise Agreement was clear that the contracting parties mutually agreed to
transfer to each other the properties indicated therein. Even if it was Maria's counsel
who prepared the written instrument, she or her representative was expected to
exercise due diligence in reviewing the entries therein before signing the
instrument. Moreover, if indeed there was a mistake on which property should be
transferred to the spouses Somis, Maria should have availed of her remedies immediately.”
140. G.R. No. 194964-65, January 11, 2016 - UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO,

INC., Petitioner, vs. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, ET AL., Respondents.
“Ratification is a voluntary and deliberate confirmation or adoption of a previous

unauthorized act.126 It converts the unauthorized act of an agent into an act of the
principal.127 It cures the lack of consent at the time of the execution of the contract entered
into by the representative, making the contract valid and enforceable. 128 It is, in essence,
consent belatedly given through express or implied acts that are deemed a confirmation or
waiver of the right to impugn the unauthorized act. 129 Ratification has the effect of placing
the principal in a position as if he or she signed the original contract.”
141. G.R. No. 182729, September 29, 2010 - KUKAN INTERNATIONAL

CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON. AMOR REYES, in her capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21, and ROMEO
M. MORALES, doing business under the name and style "RM Morales Trophies
and Plaques," Respondents.
“While a corporation may exist for any lawful purpose, the law will regard it as an
association of persons or, in case of two corporations, merge them into one, when
its corporate legal entity is used as a cloak for fraud or illegality. This is the doctrine
of piercing the veil of corporate fiction. The doctrine applies only when such corporate fiction
is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, or when
it is made as a shield to confuse the legitimate issues, or where a corporation is the mere
alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the corporation is so organized and
controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency,
conduit or adjunct of another corporation.”
142. G.R. No. 170530 , July 5, 2010 - SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION &

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/PICK & SHOVEL, INC.,/ATLANTIC ERECTORS,
INC. (JOINT VENTURE), Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY,
Respondent.
“Apparent authority, or what is sometimes referred to as the "holding out" theory,

or doctrine of ostensible agency, imposes liability, not as the result of the reality
of a contractual relationship, but rather because of the actions of a principal or an
employer in somehow misleading the public into believing that the relationship or
the authority exists.40 The existence of apparent authority may be ascertained through
(1) the general manner in which the corporation holds out an officer or agent as having the
power to act or, in other words, the apparent authority to act in general, with which it
clothes him; or (2) the acquiescence in his acts of a particular nature, with actual or
constructive knowledge thereof, whether within or beyond the scope of his ordinary powers.
It requires presentation of evidence of similar act(s) executed either in its favor or in favor
of other parties.Easily discernible from the foregoing is that apparent authority is
determined only by the acts of the principal and not by the acts of the agent. The principal
is, therefore, not responsible where the agent’s own conduct and statements have created
the apparent authority.
143. G.R. No. 188288, January 16, 2012 - SPOUSES FERNANDO and
LOURDES VILORIA, Petitioners, vs. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.,
Respondents.
“Agency is basically personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The
authority of the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal; his
act is the act of the principal if done within the scope of the authority. Qui facit per alium
facit se. "He who acts through another acts himself."
144. G.R. No. 228402, August 26, 2020 - LOYOLA LIFE PLANS
INCORPORATED (NOW LOYOLA PLANS CONSOLIDATED INC.) AND ANGELITA
D. LUMIQUED, Petitioners, VS. ATR PROFESSIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE
CORPORATION (NOW ASIAN LIFE AND GENERAL ASSURANCE
CORPORATION), Respondent.; G.R. No. 222912 - ATR PROFESSIONAL LIFE
ASSURANCE CORPORATION (NOW ASIAN LIFE AND GENERAL ASSURANCE
CORPORATION), Petitioner, VS. LOYOLA LIFE PLANS INCORPORATED (NOW
LOYOLA PLANS CONSOLIDATED INC.) AND ANGELITA D. LUMIQUED,
Respondents.
“It is important to clarify that Loyola is an agent of ATR. In a contract of agency, "a
person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation
or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter." 77 Therefore, a
planholder's payment made to Loyola has the same legal effect as payment made to ATR,
even if Loyola failed to immediately deposit the cash payment to its account.”
145. G.R. No. 165133, April 19, 2010 - SPOUSES JOSELINA ALCANTARA
AND ANTONIO ALCANTARA, and SPOUSES JOSEFINO RUBI AND ANNIE
DISTOR- RUBI, Petitioners, vs. BRIGIDA L. NIDO, as attorney-in-fact of
REVELEN N. SRIVASTAVA, Respondent.
“Article 1874 of the Civil Code explicitly requires a written authority before an
agent can sell an immovable property. Based on a review of the records, there is
absolutely no proof of Respondent’s written authority to sell the lot to Petitioners. In fact,
during the pre-trial conference, Petitioners admitted that at the time of the negotiation for
the sale of the lot, Petitioners were of the belief that Respondent was the owner of the lot.”
“It must be stressed that when specific performance is sought of a contract made with an
agent, the agency must be established by clear, certain and specific proof.”
146. G.R. No. 235260, August 27, 2020 - THE COMMONER LENDING
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MA. NORY ALCALA, Petitioner, VS.
SPOUSES VOLTAIRE AND ELLA VILLANUEVA, Respondents.
“The special power or authority to sell finds support in civil law. Foremost, in
extrajudicial foreclosure, the sale is made through the sheriff by the mortgagees acting as
the agents of mortgagors-owners. Hence, there must be a written authority from the
mortgagor-owners in favor of the mortgagees. Otherwise, the sale would be void. 21
Moreover, a special power of attorney is necessary before entering "into any contract by
which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a
valuable consideration."22 Thus, the written authority must be a special power of attorney to
sell.”
147. G.R. No. 179625, February 24, 2014 - NICANORA G. BUCTON

(deceased), substituted by REQUILDA B. YRAY, Petitioner, vs. RURAL BANK
OF EL SALVADOR, INC., MISAMIS ORIENTAL, and REYNALDO CUYONG,
Respondents, vs. ERLINDA CONCEPCION AND HER HUSBAND AND AGNES
BUCTON LUGOD, Third Party Defendants.
“A mortgage executed by an authorized agent who signed in his own name without
indicating that he acted for and on behalf of his principal binds only the agent and not the
principal.”
148. G.R. No. 193517, January 15, 2014 - THE HEIRS OF VICTORINO
SARILI, NAMELY ISABEL A. SARILI, * MELENCIA** S. MAXIMO, ALBERTO A.
SARILI, IMELDA S. HIDALGO, all herein represented by CELSO A. SARILI,
Petitioners, vs. PEDRO F. LAGROSA, represented in this act by his Attorney-
in-Fact LOURDES LABIOS MOJICA, Respondent.
“The due execution and authenticity of the subject SPA are of great significance in
determining the validity of the sale entered into by Victorino and Ramon since the
latter only claims to be the agent of the purported seller (i.e., Respondent). Article
1874 of the Civil Code provides that "[w]hen a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein
is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall
be void." In other words, if the subject SPA was not proven to be duly executed and
authentic, then it cannot be said that the foregoing requirement had been complied with;
hence, the sale would be void.”
149. G.R. No. 230669, June 16, 2021 - REX SORONGON, 1 Petitioner, VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
“It so held that although the novation of a contract of agency to make it one of
sale may relieve an offender from an incipient criminal liability, that did not happen
in the said case, for the partial payments and the proposal to pay the balance the accused
made during the barangay proceedings were not at all incompatible with his liability under
the agency that had already attached. Rather than converting the agency to sale, therefore,
he even thereby confirmed his liability as the sales agent of the complainants.”
150. G.R. No. 250085, June 14, 2021 - JULIE FUENTES RESURRECCION,
Petitioner, VS. SOUTHFIELD AGENCIES, INC., BRIGHTNIGHT SHIPPING &
INVESTMENT LTD. AND/OR ARLENE BAUTISTA, Respondents.
“As regards the liability of Bautista, suffice it to state that under Section 10 55 of Republic Act
No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, the corporate directors, officers, and
partners of the recruitment/placement agency is held solidarily liable with the
corporation or partnership for the money claims arising out of a contract involving
Filipino workers for overseas deployment. Per Respondents' Position Paper before the
LA, Bautista is an officer of Southfield, hence she is solidarily liable in the payment of
Petitioner's monetary award.”
151. G.R. No. 18823. June 29, 2010 – QUERUBIN L. ALBA and RIZALINDA
D. DE GUZMAN, Petitioners, vs. ROBERT YUPANGCO, Respondents.
“There is solidary liability when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides,
or when the nature of the obligation so requires. MAM Realty Development Corporation v.
NLRC,5 on solidary liability of corporate officers in labor disputes, enlightens:
A corporation being a juridical entity, may act only through its directors, officers
and employees. Obligations incurred by them, acting as such corporate agents are
not theirs but the direct accountabilities of the corporation they represent.”
152. G.R. No. 166044, June 18, 2012 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE
CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD, UNIMARINE
SHIPPING LINES, INC., PAUL RODRIGUEZ, PETER RODRIGUEZ, ALBERT
HONTANOSAS, and BETHOVEN QUINAIN, Respondents.
“A person dealing with a known agent is not authorized, under any circumstances,
blindly to trust the agents; statements as to the extent of his powers; such person
must not act negligently but must use reasonable diligence and prudence to
ascertain whether the agent acts within the scope of his authority. The settled rule
is that, persons dealing with an assumed agent are bound at their peril, and if they would
hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and
extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to
prove it. In this case, the Petitioners failed to discharge their burden; hence, Petitioners are
not entitled to damages from Respondent EC.”
153. G.R. No. 238289, January 20, 2021 - OSCAR S. ORTIZ, Petitioner, v.
FOREVER RICHSONS TRADING CORPORATION, CHARVERSON WOOD
INDUSTRY CORPORATION, and ADAN CO, Respondents.
“In a labor-only contracting situation, the contractor simply becomes an agent of the
principal; either directly or through the agent, the principal then controls the
results as well as the means and manner of achieving the desired results. In other
words, the party who would have been the principal in a legitimate job contracting
relationship, and who has no direct relationship with the contractor's employees, simply
becomes the employer in the labor-only contracting situation with direct supervision and
control over the contracted employees. Strictly speaking, in labor-contracting, there is no
contracting, and no contractor; there is only the employer's representative who gathers and
supplies people for the employer.”
154. G.R. No. 205657, March 29, 2017 - INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK
NOW UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs SPOUSES JEROME
AND QUINNIE BRIONES, AND JOHN DOE, Respondents
“Revocation as a form of extinguishing an agency under Article 1924 53 of the Civil

Code only applies in cases of incompatibility, such as when the principal disregards or
bypasses the agent in order to deal with a third person in a way that excludes the agent.”

Pat Cases (Principles)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pat Cases (Principles)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. G.R. No. 228356, March 09, 2020 - MERIAN B. SANTIAGO, Petitioner, VS.

SPOUSES EDNA L. GARCIA AND BAYANI GARCIA, Respondents.

“Undoubtedly, the best evidence to prove the existence of a partnership is the

“A joint venture, therefore, is akin to a partnership, the essential elements of

“It cannot be denied that the accused-appellant, as Treasurer of CALAPUPATODA, received

9. G.R. No. 176959, September 8, 2010 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST

10.G.R. No. 157852, December 15, 2010 - HEIRS OF DOMINGO VALIENTES,

“Yet, the right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust is

11.G.R. No. 205867, February 23, 2015 - MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA,

“A recognized exception is that situation where plaintiff-claimant seeks direct reconveyance

13.G.R. No. 213207. February 15, 2022 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

15.G.R. No. 217777, August 16, 2017 - PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, Petitioner,

16.G.R. No. 209090, September 23, 2020 - Philippine Development Alternatives

17.G.R. No. 169901, August 3, 2011 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner,

18.G.R. No. 178782, September 21, 2011 - JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT, Petitioner,

20.G.R. No. 154486, December 1, 2010 - FEDERICO JARANTILLA, JR., Petitioner,

“There is a co-ownership when an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. 34 It

“Corporate rehabilitation is a remedy for corporations, partnerships, and

22.G.R. No. 172690, March 3, 2010 - HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, represented by

24.G.R. No. 216023, October 5, 2016 - DR. RESTITUTO C. BUENVIAJE,

G.R. No. 202414, June 4, 2014 - JOSEPHINE WEE, Petitioner,

“A joint venture being a form of partnership, it is to be governed by the laws on

26.G.R. No. 232663, May 03, 2021 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

27.G.R. No. 196733, November 21, 2018 - HEIRS OF ROGER JARQUE,

28.G.R. No. 180323, September 16, 2015 - PURINA PHILIPPINES, INC.,,

“P.D. 194 authorizes aliens, as well as associations, corporations or partnerships

29.G.R. No. 163959. August 1, 2018 - MARCELINO E. LOPEZ, FELIZA LOPEZ,

“One of the modes of extinguishing a contract of agency is by the death of either

“A contract of agency is extinguished by its revocation.73 As agency is a personal

“The doctrine of apparent authority or what is sometimes referred to as the

“When a corporation intentionally or negligently clothes its agent with apparent

39.G.R. No. 214057, October 19, 2015 - FLORENTINA BAUTISTA-SPILLE

41.G.R. No. 194964-65, January 11, 2016 - UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO, INC.,

42.G.R. No. 182729, September 29, 2010 - KUKAN INTERNATIONAL

43.G.R. No. 170530 , July 5, 2010 - SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION &

“Apparent authority, or what is sometimes referred to as the "holding out" theory,

“Agency is basically personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The

47.G.R. No. 235260, August 27, 2020 - THE COMMONER LENDING

48.G.R. No. 179625, February 24, 2014 - NICANORA G. BUCTON (deceased),

52.G.R. No. 172690-March 3, 2010- HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, represented by

53.G.R. No. 162175 - June 28, 2010- MIGUEL J. OSSORIO PENSION

Article 1452 of the Civil Code provides:

A joint venture being a form of partnership, it is to be governed by the laws on

57.G.R. No. 154486- December 1, 2010 FEDERICO JARANTILLA, JR., Petitioner,

Article 1797 of the Civil Code provides:

58.G.R. No. 179446-January 10, 2011 LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC.,

60.G.R. No. 171805-May 30, 2011 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK V. MERELO B.

61.G.R. No. 175073- August 15, 2011 ESTATE OF MARGARITA D. CABACUNGAN,

Insofar as a partner’s conveyance of the entirety of his interest in the partnership is

65.G.R. No. 194128-December 7, 2011 WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORP. V. AMOS

In a contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something

66.G.R. No. 140528-December 7, 2011 MARIA TORBELA V. SPOUSES ANDRES

67.G.R. No. 188288-January 16, 2012 SPOUSES FERNANDO and LOURDES

68.G.R. No. 166044-June 18, 2012 COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE

Ratification in agency is the adoption or confirmation by one person of an act performed on

Article 1898 of the Civil Code provides:

In this score, Article 1868 of the Civil Code states:

Article 1440 of the Civil Code provides that:

72.G.R. No. 179096-February 06, 2013 JOSEPH GOYANKO JR. V. UCPB

73.G.R. No.171692 -June 3, 2013 SPOUSES DELFIN O. TUMIBAY and AURORA T.

Article 1898 of the Civil Code provides:

We sustain the rulings of the GSIS Board and CA.

79.G.R. No. 187769-June 4, 2014 ALVIN PATRIMONIO, Petitioner, vs.