G.R. No.

L-11908

February 4, 1918

ANTONIO M.A BARRETTO, plaintiff-appellant,

Barretto v Santa Marina 26 Phil. 440

Alberto Barretto alleges that he is the owner of the whole hacienda called Balintagac. He
was in possession of the said hacienda quietly, peacefully, and continuously, as were his
predecessors since the year 1884 until May, 1912.
Later on, defendant Leonardo F. Barretto alleging himself to be the owner of a certain
part of said hacienda illegally and unduly usurped a portion of land of the said hacienda.
Since that time the defendant had been receiving two-thirds of the fruits which the usurped
portion annually produced, which amounted to 33 uyones and 145 and 33 per cent
cavanes of rice at P8 per upon and P2 a cavan, and whose value amounts to the sum
P554; that the defendant refused to return that portion of land usurped together with the
fruits received, or their value, in spite of the fact that he has been required to do so in
writing by the plaintiff.

Issue:
Held:
As the extinguishment of the right of the creditor and the termination of the use
and possession of the real property depend upon the entire payment of the debt and its interest, it is
proper - the liquidation of accounts having been made to fix definitely the sums of the
amount which the debtors had paid on account of the capital and interests and which had
been really received by the creditor
The contract of agency can subsist only so long as the principal has confidence in his
agent because from the moment such confidence disappears and although there be a
fixed period for the exercise of of the office of the agent, a principal has a perfect right to
revoke the power that he had conferred upon the agent owing to the confidence he had
in him and which for sound reasons had ceased to exist.

G.R. No. L-18616

March 31, 1964

VICENTE M. COLEONGCO, plaintiff-appellant,

Facts:
Since 1951, Eduardo L. Claparols, operated a factory for the manufacture of nails in
Talisay,Occidental Negros, the "Claparols Steel & Nail Plant". The raw material, nail
wire, was imported from foreign sources, specially from Belgium; and he had a regular
dollar allocation therefor, granted by the Import Control Commission and the Central
Bank. The marketing of the nails was handled by the "ABCD Commercial" of Bacolod,
which was owned by a chinaman named Kho To.In 1953, losses compelled Claparols to
look for someone to finance his imports of nail wire.At first, Kho To agreed to do the
financing, but on April 25, 1953, the Chinaman introduced his compadre, appellant
Vicente Coleongco, to the appellee, recommending said appellant to be the financier in
the stead of Kho To. Claparols agreed, and on April 25 of that year a contract was
perfected between them whereby Coleongco undertook to finance and put up the funds
required for the importation of the nail wire, which Claparols bound himself to convert
into nails at
his plant.It was agreed that Coleongco would have the exclusive distribution of the prod
uct, and the"absolute care in the marketing of these nails and the promotion of sales all
over the Philippines",except the Davao Agency; that Coleongco would "share the
control of all the cash" from sales or deposited in banks; that he would have a
representative in-the management; that all contracts and transactions should be jointly
approved by both parties; that proper books would be kept and annual accounts
rendered; and that profits and losses would be shared "on a 50-50 basis".The contract
was renewed from year to year until 1958, and Coleongco's share subsequently
increased by 5% of the net profit of the factory. On April 27, 1953, Claparols executed in
favor of Coleongco, at the latter's behest, a specia lpower of attorney (Exhibit C) to
open and negotiate letters of credit, to sign contracts, bills of lading, invoices, and
papers covering transactions; to represent appellee and the nail factory; andto accept
payments and cash advances from dealers and distributors. Thereafter, Coleongco also
became the assistant manager of the factory, and took over its business
transactions, while Claparols devoted most of his time to the nail manufacture
processes. Around mid-November 1956, Claparols learned from the PNB that
Coleongco wrote the bank trying to discredit him, causing the bank to issue an alias writ
of execution. Behind Claparol's back, Colengco wrote the bank alleging that Claparol
was not serious in meeting his financialo bligations by selling the machines. Claparols
was able to settle the matter with the bank butbecause of this, he revoked the SPA and
informed Coleongco of the same thru registered mail. He also hired an autditing firm C.
Miller & Company, auditors, to go over the books and records of the
business with a view to adjusting the

accounts of the associates. This is after learning the Coleongco asked the
superintendent Agsam to pour acid on the machinery to paralyze the factory. Coleongco
also wrote Kho To to cut his monthly advances from P2000 to P1000 to take advantage
of the financial difficulties of Claparols and so that later, they may own the factory. This
was carried on by Kho To in a letter advising that he can only draw P1000. The auditors
found that
Coleongco owed the Claparols Nail Factory the amount of P81,387.37, as of June 30, 1
957.Coleongco was also dismissed as the assistant manager.Coleongco denies the
allegations and claims that the revocation of the SPA was illegal and that he is entitled
to the share of the profits as well as moral damages. Claparols counte rclaimed.t
Issue:Can Claparols validly revoke the Special Power of Attorney even if it is coupled
with interest on the part of the agent?
Held:YES. That the appellee Coleongco acted in bad faith towards his principal
Claparols is, on the record, unquestionable. His letters to the Philippine National Bank
(Exhibits 35 and 36) attempting to undermine the credit of the principal and to acquire
the factory of the latter, without the principal's knowledge are plain acts of deliberate
sabotage by the agent that fully justified the revocation of the power of attorney. The
basic rule of contracts requires parties to act loyally toward each other in the pursuit of
the common end, and appellant clearly violated the rule of good faith prescribed by Art.
1315 of the new Civil Code.

G.R. No. L-40681

October 2, 1934

DY BUNCIO & COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appelle,

Facts
Ong Guan Can jr. as agent of Ong Guan Can, cold the rice mill and camarin to Juan Tong and Pua Giok
Eng. The copy of the deed of sale and power of attorney were recorded in the register of deeds of Capiz.

Dy Buncio & Co, Inc. was a creditor of Ong Guan Can who secured a judgment against the latter for a
sum of money. Dy Buncio & Co, Inc. wants to levy the property to satisfy the money judgment.

Issue:

Whether or not the property was alienated and therefore no longer subject to attachment, levy and
execution.

Ruling:

The deed of sale was invalid as the power of attorney given did not include the power to sell/alienate
the property in question. The property therefore still belongs to the judgment debtor and is subject to
levy and execution.

G.R. No. L-14248

April 28, 1960

NEW MANILA LUMBER COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellant,

New Manila Lumber vs Republic

The Republlic contracted with Alfonso Mendoza for the construction of 2 school houses. Plaintiff New
Manila Lumber supplied the materials and was constituted attourney-in-fact by the contractor to collect
and receive from the Republic any and all amounts which may be due to said contractor from the
Republic in connection with the construction of the aforesaid school buildings. The contractor (principal)
demanded and collected from te Republilc.

Plaintiff brought an action against the Republic when it did not get paid for the supplies.

Issue:

WON plaintiff may bring a collection suit agains the Republic on the basis of a power of attorney granted
to it by the contractor.

Ruling:

No. While the plaintiff may be the contractor's agent in the collection of whatever amounts may be due
the contractor, the agency had apparently been revoked impliedly under Artlice 1920 in relation to
article 1924 by virtue of the principal's act of dealing directly with the republic.

G.R. No. L-28050

March 13, 1928

FEDERICO VALERA, plaintiff-appellant,