Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Country Bankers Insurance vs. Keppel FACTS: On January 27, 1992
Country Bankers Insurance vs. Keppel FACTS: On January 27, 1992
HELD:
4. the agent acts within the scope of his
Yes. All the elements of agency are authority.
present, to wit:
The first and second elements are present as
1. there is consent, express or implied of the Continental Airlines does not deny that it
parties to establish the relationship; concluded an agreement with Holiday Travel
2. the object is the execution of a juridical act to which Mager is part of, whereby Holiday
in relation to a third person; Travel would enter into contracts of carriage
3. the agent acts as a representative and not for with third persons on the airlines’ behalf.
himself, and The third element is also present as it is
undisputed that Holiday Travel merely acted
in a representative capacity and it is one, and simultaneously claim that they are
Continental Airlines and not Holiday Travel not bound by Mager’s supposed
who is bound by the contracts of carriage misrepresentation for purposes of avoiding
entered into by Holiday Travel on its behalf. Spouses Viloria’s claim for damages and
The fourth element is also present maintaining the validity of the subject
considering that Continental Airlines has contracts. It may likewise be argued that CAI
not made any allegation that Holiday Travel cannot deny liability as it benefited from
exceeded the authority that was granted to Mager’s acts, which were performed in
it. compliance with Holiday Travel’s obligations
as CAI’s agent.However, a person’s vicarious
Continental Airlines also never questioned
liability is anchored on his possession of
the validity of the transaction between Mager
control, whether absolute or limited, on the
and the spouses. Continental Airlines is
tortfeasor. Without such control, there is
therefore in estoppel. Continental Airlines
nothing which could justify extending the
cannot be allowed to take an altogether
liability to a person other than the one who
different position and deny that Holiday
committed the tort.
Travel is its agent without condoning or
giving imprimatur to whatever damage or
prejudice that may result from such denial 3. YES.
or retraction to Spouses Viloria, who relied
on good faith on Continental Airlines’ acts in On the basis of the foregoing and given the
recognition of Holiday Travel’s authority. allegation of Spouses Viloria that Fernando’s
Estoppel is primarily based on the doctrine consent to the subject contracts was
of good faith and the avoidance of harm that supposedly secured by Mager through
will befall an innocent party due to its fraudulent means, it is plainly apparent that
injurious reliance, the failure to apply it in their demand for a refund is tantamount to
this case would result in gross travesty of seeking for an annulment of the subject
justice. contracts on the ground of vitiated consent.
2. NO. Whether the subject contracts are
annullable, this Court is required to
determine whether Mager’s alleged
Spouses Viloria’s cause of action on
misrepresentation constitutes causal fraud.
the basis of Mager’s alleged fraudulent
Similar to the dispute on the existence of an
misrepresentation is clearly one of tort or
agency, whether fraud attended the
quasi-delict, there being no pre-existing
execution of a contract is factual in nature
contractual relationship between them.
and this Court, as discussed above, may
Therefore, it was incumbent upon Spouses
scrutinize the records if the findings of the
Viloria to prove that CAI was equally at fault.
CA are contrary to those of the RTC. Under
However, the records are devoid of any
Article 1338 of the Civil Code, there is fraud
evidence by which CAI’s alleged liability can
when, through insidious words or
be substantiated. Apart from their claim that
machinations of one of the contracting
CAI must be held liable for Mager’s supposed
parties, the other is induced to enter into a
fraud because Holiday Travel is CAI’s agent,
contract which, without them, he would not
Spouses Viloria did not present evidence
have agreed to. In order that fraud may
that CAI was a party or had contributed to
vitiate consent, it must be the causal (dolo
Mager’s complained act either by instructing
causante), not merely the incidental (dolo
or authorizing Holiday Travel and Mager to
incidente), inducement to the making of the
issue the said misrepresentation.It may
contract.30 In Samson v. Court of
seem unjust at first glance that CAI would
Appeals,31 causal fraud was defined as “a
consider Spouses Viloria bound by the terms
deception employed by one party prior to or
and conditions of the subject contracts,
simultaneous to the contract in order to
which Mager entered into with them on CAI’s
secure the consent of the other.”32Also, fraud
behalf, in order to deny Spouses Viloria’s
must be serious and its existence must be
request for a refund or Fernando’s use of
established by clear and convincing
Lourdes’ ticket for the re-issuance of a new
evidence.
On 11 May 1994, respondent, acting as
This Court finds the only proof of Mager’s administrator and attorney-in-fact of
alleged fraud, which is Fernando’s testimony
that an Amtrak had assured him of the Revelen, filed a complaint for recovery of
perennial availability of seats at Amtrak, to
possession with damages and prayer for
be wanting. As CAI correctly pointed out and
as Fernando admitted, it was possible that preliminary injunction against petitioners
during the intervening period of three (3)
with the RTC.
weeks from the time Fernando purchased
the subject tickets to the time he talked to
said Amtrak employee, other passengers
may have cancelled their bookings and RTCs Ruling
reservations with Amtrak, making it possible
for Amtrak to accommodate them. Indeed,
the existence of fraud cannot be proved by The RTC stated that based on the evidence
mere speculations and conjectures. Fraud is presented, Revelen owns the lot and
never lightly inferred; it is good faith that is.
Under the Rules of Court, it is presumed that respondent was verbally authorized to sell
"a person is innocent of crime or wrong" and 200 square meters to petitioners. The RTC
that "private transactions have been fair and
regular."35 Spouses Viloria failed to ruled that since respondents authority to
overcome this presumption. sell the land was not in writing, the sale was
void under Article 1874[6] of the Civil
ALCANTARA VS. NIDO
Code.[7] The RTC ruled that rescission is the
Facts
proper remedy.[8]
Revelen, who is respondents daughter and of
legal age, is the owner of an unregistered CA Ruling
land with an area of 1,939 square meters
located in Cardona, Rizal. Sometime in On 5 January 2004, petitioners
March 1984, respondent accepted the offer appealed the trial courts Decision to the
of petitioners to purchase a 200-square appellate court. In its decision dated 10
meter portion of Revelens lot (lot) at P200 per June 2004, the appellate court reversed the
square meter. Petitioners paid P3,000 as RTC decision and dismissed the civil case.[10]
downpayment and the balance was payable
on installment. Petitioners constructed their The appellate court explained that this is an
houses in 1985. In 1986, with respondents unlawful detainer case. The prayer in the
consent, petitioners occupied an additional complaint and amended complaint was for
150 square meters of the lot. By 1987, recovery of possession and the case was filed
petitioners had already within one year from the last demand letter.
paid P17,500[5] before petitioners defaulted Even if the complaint involves a question of
Specific Performance