Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CAMPS
FACTS: Macke and Chandler are
partners doing business under the firm
name of Macke, Chandler & Company.
Macke, on the order of one Ricardo
Flores, who represented himself to be
agent of the defendant, shipped goods
to the defendants at the Washington
Caf. Flores acknowledged its receipt
and made various payments thereon.
On demand for payment of balance,
Flores informed him that he did not
have the necessary funds on hand,
and that he would have to wait the
return of his principal, the defendant,
who was at that time visiting in the
provinces. Flores acknowledged the
bill for the goods furnished and the
balance still due them.
Macke claims that when the goods
were ordered they were ordered on
the credit of the defendant and that
they were shipped by the plaintiffs
after inquiry which satisfied him as to
the credit of the defendant and as to
the authority of Flores to act as his
agent. That when he went to the Cafe
for the purpose of collecting his bill he
found Flores apparently in charge of
the business and claiming to be the
business manager of the defendant. A
complaint was filed for sum of money.
A written contract was introduced in
evidence, from which it appears that
Galmes, the former owner of the Cafe,
sub rented the building to the
defendant obligating himself not to
sub rent the building or the business
without the consent of Galmes. The
contract was signed and attached was
an inventory signed by the defendant
followed by the name Flores, with the
words "managing agent" following his
name.
ISSUE: Whether Flores was managing
the business as agent or sub lessee.
RULING: Flores was the agent of the
Camps in the management of the bar
and of the Washington Cafe with
authority to bind Camps, his principal,
for the payment of the goods.
The contract sufficiently establishes
the fact that the Camps was the owner
CONDE V. CA
FACTS: Dominga Conde and her coheirs sold with right of repurchase a
parcel of land to spouses Casimira and
Pio Altera. The Pacto de Retro Sale
provided that, if the land is not
repurchased a new agreement shall be
made between the parties and title
and ownership of the land shall be
vested to the Alteras. The lot was then
adjudicated to the Alteras and an OCT
was issued in their name subject to
the right of redemption by Dominga,
within ten (10) years after returning
the purchase price and the amount of
taxes paid by the spouses. Later,
Paciente Cordero, son-in-law of the
Alteras, signed a memorandum of
repurchase. However, neither of the
vendees-a-retro,
Alteras,
was
a
signatory to the deed. Then, Pio Altera
sold the disputed lot to the spouses
Ramon and Catalina Conde.
Contending that she had validly
repurchased the lot, Dominga filed a
Complaint against Paciente Cordero
and his wife, Spouses Ramon and
Catalina Conde, and Casimira Pasagui
for quieting of title to real property
and
declaration
of
ownership.
Dominga's evidence is that Paciente
Cordero signed the Memorandum of
Repurchase in representation his inlaws, and that Cordero received the
repurchase price. Private respondents,
on the other hand, claims that
Paciente Cordero signed the document
of repurchase merely to show that he
had no objection to the repurchase;
and that he did not receive the
repurchase
price
from
Dominga
inasmuch as he had no authority from
his parents-in-law who were the
vendees-a-retro.
After trial, the lower Court rendered its
Decision dismissing the Complaint. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld
the findings of the Court and held that,
Dominga had failed to validly exercise
her right of repurchase in view of the
fact
that
the
Memorandum
of
Repurchase was signed by Paciente
JIMENEZ V. RABOT
FACTS: Gregorio Jimenez owned 3
parcels
of
land
in
Alaminos,
Pangasinan. While he was staying at
Vigan, his property in Alaminos was
confided by him to the care of his
elder sister Nicolasa Jimenez. He wrote
a letter to his sister wherein he
informed her that he was pressed for
money and requested her to sell one
of his parcels of land and send him the
money in order that he might pay his
debts.
The
letter
contains
no
description of the land to be sold other
than the words "one of my parcels of
land" Acting upon this letter Nicolasa
approached the Pedro Rabot, and the
latter agreed to buy the parcel of land
for P500, P250 were paid at once.
Nicolasa admits having received this
payment but there is no evidence that
she sent any of it to her brother.
Later, Gregorio demanded that his
sister should surrender this piece of
land to him which she refused. As a
result Gregorio, instituted an action for
the recovery their land. This action
was decided favorably to the plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, Nicolasa Jimenez executed
and delivered to Rabot a deed
conveying to him the parcel of land
which
is
the
subject
of
this
controversy. He acquired possession
under the deed from Nicolasa during
the pendency of the litigation. It
appears that he was at the time
cognizant of that circumstance.
ISSUE:
Whether
the
authority
conferred on Nicolasa by the letter
was sufficient to enable her to bind
her brother.
RULING: Article 1713, NCC, requires
that the authority to alienate land
shall be contained in an express
mandate; while subsection 5 of section
335 of the Code of Civil Procedure
says that the authority of the agent
must be in writing and subscribed by
the party to be charged. We are of the
LIAN V. PUNO
FACTS: Diego Lian was the owner of
a certain parcel of land. He executed a
power of attorney in favour of Marcos
P. Puno which conferred upon him the
power ... that ... he may administer ...
purchase, sell, collect and pay ... in
any proceeding or business concerning
the good administration and
advancement of my said interests."
Later, Puno sold and delivered said
parcel of land. A complaint was filed
by Lian where he alleges that the
said document did not confer upon
Puno the power to sell the land and
prayed that the sale be set aside; that
the land be returned to him, together
with damages. In defense, they
admitted the sale of the land by Puno
to the other defendants and alleged
that the same was a valid sale and
prayed to be relieved from the liability
under the complaint. After trial, the
lower court ruled in favour of Lian it
held that the document Exhibit A did
not give Puno authority to sell the land
and that the sale was illegal and void.
ISSUE: Whether Puno was not
authorized to sell the land in question
and that the sale executed is null and
void.
RULING: Contracts of agency as well
as general powers of attorney must be
interpreted in accordance with the
language used by the parties. The real
intention of the parties is primarily to
be determined from the language
used. The intention is to be gathered
from the whole instrument. In case of
doubt resort must be had to the
situation, surroundings and relations
of the parties. Whenever it is possible,
effect is to be given to every word and
clause used by the parties. It is to be
presumed that the parties said what
they intended to say and that they
used each word or clause with some
purpose and that purpose is, if