Jocelyn B. Doles vs. Ma.

Aura Tina Angeles

G.R. No. 149353. June 26, 2006.

Facts:

Petitioner executed a Deed of Absolute Sale ceding a parcel of land in favor

of respondent to satisfy the alleged indebtedness of the former in the
amount of P405,430.00. Since the said land was mortgaged to the National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, they further agreed that respondent
assume the remaining balance of the loan. Learning that the petitioner still
has arrearages, respondent demanded that the arrearages be paid first.
Petitioner did not heed, thus a case was filed by the respondent.

In answer, the petitioner alleged that sale was void for lack of consideration
and that she was not indebted to the respondent as she only referred her
friends to respondent whom she knew to be engaged in the business of
lending money in exchange for personal checks through her capitalist
Arsenio Pua. Further petitioner contended that since the respondent is also
an agent, she does not have the capacity to sue her.

It is an admitted fact by both petitioner and defendant, based on their

testimonies, that respondent knew that the money will be used by the
friends of the petitioner; that the respondent was merely representing
Arsenio Pua; and that before the supposed friends of the petitioner defaulted
in payment, each issued their personal checks in the name of Arsenio Pua for
the payment of their debt.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner and respondent were acting on their personal
capacity or as mere agents.

Ruling:
The question whether an agency has been created is ordinarily a question
which may be established in the same was as any other fact, either by direct
or circumstantial evidence. Agency may be implied from the words and
conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the particular case. Though
the fact or extent of authority of the agents may not, as a general rule, be
established from the declarations of the agents alone, if one professed to act
as agent for another, she may be stopped to deny her agency both as
against the asserted principal and the third persons interested in the
transaction in which he or she is engaged.

In this case, petitioner knew that the financier of the respondent is Pua, and
respondent knew that the borrowers are friends of petitioner. It is sufficient
that petitioner disclosed to respondent that the former was acting in behalf
of his principals, her friends. For an agency to arise, it is not necessary that
the principal personally encounter the third person with whom the agent
interacts.

Here, both petitioner and respondent have undeniably disclosed to each

other that they are representing someone else and so both of them are
estopped to deny the same. That both arties acted as mere agents is shown
by the undisputed fact that the friends of the petitioner issued checks in
payment for the loan in the name of Arsenio Pua.