Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    De Castro Vs CA (Agency)

    Uploaded by

    Jani Misterio
    Constante Amor De Castro and Amor De Castro were co-owners of four lots that they authorized Artigo to act as a broker to sell. Artigo found a buyer for two of the lots and received a commission, but felt he was owed more. He sued to collect the unpaid balance of his commission. The De Castros argued the complaint should be dismissed for failing to include the other two co-owners as indispensable parties. The court held that dismissal was not warranted because the action was based solely on the contract of agency between Artigo and Constante, as the document Constante signed appointed Artigo as agent for both his individual and representative capacities. As co-principals in the agency contract, the co

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De Castro Vs CA (Agency)

    Uploaded by

    Jani Misterio
    57 views2 pages
    Constante Amor De Castro and Amor De Castro were co-owners of four lots that they authorized Artigo to act as a broker to sell. Artigo found a buyer for two of the lots and received a commission, but felt he was owed more. He sued to collect the unpaid balance of his commission. The De Castros argued the complaint should be dismissed for failing to include the other two co-owners as indispensable parties. The court held that dismissal was not warranted because the action was based solely on the contract of agency between Artigo and Constante, as the document Constante signed appointed Artigo as agent for both his individual and representative capacities. As co-principals in the agency contract, the co

    Original Description:

    DE CASTRO CASE

    Original Title

    De Castro vs CA (Agency)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Constante Amor De Castro and Amor De Castro were co-owners of four lots that they authorized Artigo to act as a broker to sell. Artigo found a buyer for two of the lots and received a commission, but felt he was owed more. He sued to collect the unpaid balance of his commission. The De Castros argued the complaint should be dismissed for failing to include the other two co-owners as indispensable parties. The court held that dismissal was not warranted because the action was based solely on the contract of agency between Artigo and Constante, as the document Constante signed appointed Artigo as agent for both his individual and representative capacities. As co-principals in the agency contract, the co

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views2 pages

    De Castro Vs CA (Agency)

    Uploaded by

    Jani Misterio
    Constante Amor De Castro and Amor De Castro were co-owners of four lots that they authorized Artigo to act as a broker to sell. Artigo found a buyer for two of the lots and received a commission, but felt he was owed more. He sued to collect the unpaid balance of his commission. The De Castros argued the complaint should be dismissed for failing to include the other two co-owners as indispensable parties. The court held that dismissal was not warranted because the action was based solely on the contract of agency between Artigo and Constante, as the document Constante signed appointed Artigo as agent for both his individual and representative capacities. As co-principals in the agency contract, the co

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    #8

    CONSTANTE AMOR DE CASTRO VS CA


    GR NO. 115838
    JULY 18, 2002

    FACTS:
    Private respondent Artigo sued petitioners Constante and Amor De Castro to collect the unpaid
    balance of his broker’s commission from the De Castros.
    The appellants, De Castros, were co-owners of 4 lots in Cubao, Quezon City. The appellee, Artigo,
    was authorized by appellants to act as real estate broker in the sale of these properties for the amount of
    P23,000,000.00, 5% of which will be given to the agent as commission. Appellee first found the Times
    Transit Corporation and 2 lots were sold. In return, he received P48,893.76 as commission.
    Appellee apparently felt short changed because according to him, his total commission should be
    P352,500.00 which is 5% of the agreed price of P7,050,000.00 paid by Times Transit Corporation to
    appellants for the 2 lots and that it was he who introduced the buyer to appellants and unceasingly
    facilitated the negotiation which ultimately led to the consummation of the sale. Hence, he sued to collect
    the balance of P303,606.24 after having received P48,893.76 in advance.
    Appellants argued that appellee is selfishly asking for more than what he truly deserved as
    commission to the prejudice of other agents who were more instrumental to the consummation of the
    sale and that there were more or less 18 others who took active efforts.
    The De Castros argued that Artigo’s complaint should have been dismissed for failure to implead
    all the co owners of the 2 lots. . The De Castros contend that failure to implead such indispensable parties
    is fatal to the complaint since Artigo, as agent of all the four co-owners, would be paid with funds co-
    owned by the four co-owners.
    It was shown also that Constante Amor De Castro signed the authorization of Artigo as owner and
    representative of the co-owners.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the complaint merits dismissal for failure to implead other co-owners as
    indispensable parties

    HELD:
    No. The De Castros’ contentions are devoid of legal basis. The CA explained that it is not necessary
    to implead the co-owners since the action is exclusively based on a contract of agency between Artigo
    and Constante. The rule on mandatory joinder of indispensable parties is not applicable to the instant
    case.
    Constante signed the note as owner and as representative of the other co-owners. Under this
    note, a contract of agency was clearly constituted between Constante and Artigo. Whether Constante
    appointed Artigo as agent, in Constante’s individual or representative capacity, or both, the De Castros
    cannot seek the dismissal of the case for failure to implead the other co-owners as indispensable parties.
    The De Castros admit that the other co-owners are solidarily liable under the contract of agency, citing
    Article 1915 of the Civil Code, which reads:

    Art. 1915. If two or more persons have appointed an agent for a common transaction or
    undertaking, they shall be solidarily liable to the agent for all the consequences of the agency.

    The solidary liability of the four co-owners, however, militates against the De Castros’ theory that
    the other co-owners should be impleaded as indispensable parties.
    When the law expressly provides for solidarity of the obligation, as in the liability of co-principals
    in a contract of agency, each obligor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation. The agent may recover
    the whole compensation from any one of the co-principals, as in this case.
    Indeed, Article 1216 of the Civil Code provides that a creditor may sue any of the solidary debtors.
    This article reads:
    Art. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of
    them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those
    which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully
    collected.

    You might also like