Case Title Case Digest Reaction

Alcantara vs Nido FACTS: I agree with the Supreme

G.R. No. 165133 1. Revelen who is the daughter of the Court’s ruling in this case
respondent, is the owner of the land with an for the simple fact that the
area of 1,939 sq meters. law expressly provides for
2. In March 1984, the respondent accepted the the written requirement
offer of herein petitioners for the purchase of when a sale of piece of land
a 200 sq meter portion of Revelen’s lot. is involved.
3. On May 11, 1994, respondent acting as
administrator and attorney-in-fact of Revelen Such requirements were
filed a complaint for recovery of possession placed in the law, as
against petitioners with RTC. safeguards preventing
agents the opportunity to
ISSUE: defraud his principal and
Whether or not, respondent as Revelen’s agent innocent parties. Like what
had the authority to enter into a contract of sale with has happened in this case,
petitioners despite having no written authority from wherein the purchasers
Revelen? were made to believe that
the one selling the land was
RULING: the owner and not merely
NO, the Supreme Court ruled that Art. 1875 of the the agents of the owner.
Civil Code explicitly requires a written authority
before an agent can sell an immovable property.
Based on the facts in this case, there is absolutely no
proof of a respondent’s written authority to sell the
lot to the petitioners. In fact, petitioner upon
purchasing said lot had believed that the respondent
was the owner of the lot and only came to know that
it was Revelen’s during the hearing of this case.
Therefore, the sale of lot by the respondent who did
not have written authority from Revelen is void.

Absolute FACTS: In this case I most

Management vs 1. October 5, 2000, Sherwood Holdings respectfully submit that I
Metrobank Corporation and Spouses Ang filed a case for a disagree with the Supreme
G.R. No. 190277 sum of money against respondent, Absolute Court and agree with the
Management before the RTC. Respondent ruling of Court of Appeals in
filed its answer and incorporated a third-party saying that;
complaint against petitioner, Metropolitan
Bank. “The presumption in favor
2. On September 5, 2005, RTC issued an Order of the counsel’s authority to
directing petitioner to produce and allow appear in behalf of a client
private respondent to copy, microfilm copies is a strong one. A lawyer is
of several checks and the bank ledgers of two not even required to
accounts. present a written
3. On November 10, 2006, the trial court set the authorization from the
case for pre-trail, when the counsels were client. In fact, the absence
asked to produce their respective of a formal notice of entry
authorizations to appear at the said hearing. of appearance will not
The counsel for the petitioner manifested that invalidate the acts
her authority to appear for petitioner was performed by the counsel in
submitted at the first pre-trial hearing in 2004. his client’s name.”
4. Petitioner’s counsel was given the chance to
over the records to look for the Secretary’s In such a case the order
Certificate she allegedly submitted in 2004. made by the RTC in allowing
However she failed to show any written the lawyer to search the
 authority, as a result, RTC upon motion of court records for the earlier
respondent declared petitioner in default. submitted SPA was
5. CA, upon appeal reversed ruling of the RTC in improper. For the lawyer
declaring in default the petitioner. who is not familiar with the
ISSUE: record keeping of said court
Whether or not, a Special Power of Attorney need could not possibly be able
not be presented in court during pre-trial hearings to ascertain in finding such
since the authority of the lawyer to appear in behalf document which was not in
of his client is presumed? her duty to keep.

RULING: Rather what should have

YES, the Supreme Court stated in this case that done by the RTC, instead of
consistently with the mandatory character of the pre- allowing the motion to
trial, the Rules oblige not only the lawyers but the default was to allow that
parties as well to appear for this purpose before the the lawyer be allowed to
Court, and when a party “fails to appear at a pre-trial follow up on said
conference he may be non-suited or considered as in authorization on the next
default”. And in those instances where a party may hearing date or could be to
not himself be present at the pre-trial, and another allow the rescheduling of
person substitutes for him or his lawyer undertakes to said pre-trial procedure
appear not only as an attorney but in substitution of pursuant to the Rules of
the client’s person, it is imperative for that of the Court.
lawyer to have “special authority” to make such
substantive agreements as only the client otherwise
has capacity to make.
That “special authority” should ordinarily be in
writing or at the very least be “duly established by
evidence other than the self-serving assertion of
counsel himself”.
In this I agree with the
Gozun vs. FACTS: Supreme Court in ruling
Mercado 1. In the local elections of 1995, respondent vied that no evidence was
G.R. No. 167812 for the gubernatorial post in Pampanga. Upon submitted by the petitioner
respondent’s request, petitioner, owner of in proving that the
JMG Publishing House, a printing shop located respondent’s sister-in-law
in San Fernando, Pampanga, submitted to was authorized by the
respondent draft samples and price quotation former to accept the cash
of campaign materials. advance.
2. According to the claims of the petitioner,
respondent’s wife had told him that If it was within his
respondent already approved his price knowledge that Lilian was
quotation and that he could start printing the acting merely as an agent in
campaign materials, hence he proceeded receiving the receipt issued
doing so. by Lilian in this case, the
3. Given the urgency and limited time to do the petitioner should have
job, petitioner availed the services of Metro already questioned why she
Angeles Printing and of St. Joseph Printing merely signed in her
Press, owned by his daughter Jennifer Gozun personal capacity and not in
and mother Epifania Gozun. behalf of respondent.
4. Petitioner delivered the campaign materials to
respondent’s headquarters. As a businessman despite
5. Meanwhile on March 31, 1995, respondent’s that fact the he was
sister-in-law, Lilian Soriano, obtained from compadres with the
petitioner “cash advance” of Php 253,000 respondent in this case, the
allegedly for the allowance of poll watchers. petitioner should have been
6. Later he sent respondent a Statement of more careful in his business
Account in total amount of Php 2,177,906 transactions so as not to
itemized as follows: Php 640,310 for JMG make presumptions that
 Publishing, Php 837,696 for Metro Angeles would lead to the issues of
Printing, Php 446,900 for St. Joseph Printing this case.
and Php 253,000, “cash advance” obtained by
Lilian.
7. On August 11, 1995, respondent’s wife
partially paid Php 1,000,000 to petitioner.
However despite repeated demands from
petitioner, the respondent failed to settle the
remaining balance. Petitioner and respondent
being compradres waited for more than three
years before filing a case.
8. In his answer, respondent denied having
transacted with petitioner or entering any
contract for the printing of campaign materials
and alleged that the various campaign
materials delivered to him were represented
as donations from his family. He further
denied authorizing Lilian to obtain a cash
advance from the respondent, neither did he
authorizes his wife to enter into a contract
with the printing business on his behalf.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, CA was incorrect for ruling in
favor of respondent on the ground that there was no
evidence to prove that Lilian was authorized to
receive the cash advance from petitioner?

RULING:
NO, the Supreme Court stated in its ruling that,
Generally, the agency may be oral, unless the law
requires a specific form. However, a special power of
attorney is necessary for an agent to, as in this case,
borrow money, unless it be urgent and indispensable
for the preservation of the things which are under
administration. Since nothing in this case involves the
presentation of things under administration, a
determination whether Lilian had the special
authority to borrow money on behalf of the
respondent was in order.
It bears noting that Lilian signed the receipt in her
name alone, without indicating therein that she was
acting for and in behalf of respondent. She thus
bound her personal capacity and not as agent of the
respondent or anyone for that matter.
It is a general rule in the law of agency that, in order
to bind the principal by a mortgage on real property
executed by an agent, it must upon its face purport to
be made, signed and sealed in the name of the
principal otherwise it will bind the agent only.

Bravo-Guerrero FACTS:
vs Bravo 1. Spouses Mauricio and Simona Bravo owned to In this case, I agree with the
G.R. No. 152658 parcels of land measuring 287 and 291 square Supreme Court in ruling
meters and located in Makati City. The that the respondent heirs in
properties contain a large residential dwelling, this case where not the
a smaller house and other improvements. proper party or contesting
2. The Spouse had three children, Roland, Cesar the deed of sale executed
 and Lily Bravo. Cesar died without issue, Lily by Mauricio. Because the
married David Diaz and had a son David Diaz law expressly reserves said
Jr. Roland had six children Elizabeth, Edward, remedy to the wife alone.
Roland Jr, Senia, Benjamin and their half-sister
Ofelia Bravo. Also because although the
3. On June 17, 1966, Simona executed a General respondents, were not
Power of Attorney appointing Mauricio as her granted to avail of such
attorney-in-fact. It authorized Mauricio to remedy under Art 173, their
“mortgage, or otherwise hypothecate, sell, motion for the partition of
assign, and dispose of any and all of my the property as co-owners
property, real, personal or mixed of any kind was granted by the
whatsoever and wherever situated or any Supreme Court. Thereby
interest therein”. Mauricio subsequently not dismissing their rights
mortgaged the properties to Philippine as co-owners of the
National Bank, for Php 10,000 and Php 5,000. properties in dispute as the
4. On October 25, 1970, Mauricio executed a legal heirs of the Spouses
Deed of Sale with assumption of Real estate Bravo in this case.
mortgage conveying said properties to Roland
Ofelia and Elizabeth Bravo.
5. On June 12, 1997, Edward, represented by his
wife Fatima Bravo, filed an action for judicial
partition of the properties claiming that he and
the other grandchildren of Mauricio and
Simona are co-owners of said properties.
6. In 1999, David Jr. whose parents died in 1944,
moved to intervene the case impugning the
validity of the Deed of Sale and praying for the
partition of the properties among the surviving
heirs of Mauricio and Simona.
ISSUE:

Whether or not, the sale executed by Mauricio

was void due to the lack of Simona’s consent?

RULING:

NO, the Supreme Court ruled in this case stating

that, it is well settled that contracts alienating
conjugal real property without the wife’s consent are
merely voidable under the Civil Code that is binding
on the parties unless annulled by a competent court
and not void ab initio.

Under Art. 173 of the Civil code, only the wife can
ask to annul a contract that disposes of conjugal real
property without her consent. The wife must file the
action for annulment during the marriage and within
ten years from the questioned transaction. There are
specific remedies available if the wife fails to exercise
this right withing the specified period. In such case,
the wife or her heirs can only demand the value of the
property provided that they prove that the husband
fraudulently alienated the property. Fraud is never
presumed, but must be established by clear and
convincing evidence.

Further respondents, who are Simona’s heirs, are

not the parties who can invoke said remedies for the
law specified that the remedy can be availed of the
wife alone. However, Simona did not assail the Deed
of Sale during her marriage or even after Mauricio’s
death.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court finds it proper to

grant the partition of the properties, subject to
modification. Since respondents who intervened in
said case where co-owners as legal heirs of the
Mauricio and Simona, any co-owner may demand at
any time for the partition of the common property
unless a co-owner has repudiated the co-ownership.