Gutierrez Hermanos v.
Engracio Orense Issue/s:
G.R. No. L-9188 | December 4, 1914
Torres, J.
Topic: Agent acts within the scope of his authority
Plaintiff-appellee: GUTIERREZ HERMANOS
Defendant-appellant: ENGRACIO ORENSE
Facts:
 Defendant Orense owned a parcel of land in Guinobatan, Albay
 Jose Duran: Orense’s nephew
o Feb 14, 1907: Duran sold Orense’s land, allegedly with the latter’s
knowledge and consent, through a notarized public instrument, to
plaintiff company Gutierrez Hermanos, reserving to himself the right
to repurchase for the same price it was sold (P1,500) within a period of
4 years from date of the instrument
 GH did not possess the property bc of continued occupancy by the Orense and
Duran by virtue of contract of lease, in force up to Feb 14, 1911
 GH charged Jose Duran with estafa bc Orense refused to deliver the property
after the lapse of the four years stipulated for the redemption but said that he had
not executed any written power of attorney to Duran nor had he given the latter
any verbal authorization to sell the said property to GH in his name
o Duran allegedly represented himself in the deed of sale to be the
absolute owner of the aforesaid land and improvements
 However, when Orense was called as a witness to the trial, he said that he
did consent to Duran's selling of the property under right of redemption to
GH
o Duran was then acquitted
 GH now sues Orense, alleging that he refused to perfect the sale by refusing to
execute the deed of final conveyance without justifiable reason
o Also, Orense and Duran refused to pay rentals despite continued
occupation of the property since Feb 14, 1911 and despite demand
 Orense denied the allegations; said that he is the lawful owner of the property, as
recorded in the property registry and that he did not execute any written power
of attorney nor given any verbal authority to Jose Duran in order that the
latter might, in his name and representation, sell the said property to the
plaintiff company
o He said that his knowledge of the sale was acquired long after the
execution of the contract of sale between Duran and Gutierrez
Hermanos and that prior thereto, he did not intentionally and
deliberately perform any act such as might have induced GH to believe
that Duran was empowered and authorized by the him
 CFI: ruled in favor of GH
 Thus, this case
W/N Orense gave his consent to Duran’s selling of the property and later
confirmed and ratified the sale – YES
Judgment:
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.
Ratio:
It was proved at the trial that Orense gave his consent to the sale and so it
follows that he conferred verbal, or at least implied, power of agency upon his
nephew Duran, who accepted it in the same way by selling the said property
 Orense, as the principal, must then fulfill all the obligations contracted by
the agent, who acted within the scope of his authority
Even if the consent was granted subsequent to the sale, since Orense approved his
nephew’s action (who acted as the manager of his uncle's business), this ratification
produced the effect of an express authorization to make the sale
 Article 1259, CC: "No one can contract in the name of another without
being authorized by him or without his legal representation according to
law.
A contract executed in the name of another by one who has neither his
authorization nor legal representation shall be void, unless it should be
ratified by the person in whose name it was executed before being revoked
by the other contracting party.”
 Orense’s sworn statement made while testifying as a witness at the trial of Duran
for estafa, virtually confirms and ratifies the sale of his property effected by
Duran, and, pursuant to Article 1313, CC, remedies all defects which the
contract may have contained from the moment of its execution
Since Orense acknowledged and admitted under oath that he had consented to
Duran's selling the property to GH, it is not just nor is it permissible for him to
later deny that admission, to the prejudice of the purchaser, who gave P1,500
for the said property
 The contract of sale of the property in the notarial instrument of February 14,
1907, is alleged to be invalid, null and void under the provisions of paragraph 5
of section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the authority which
Orense may have given to Duran to make the said contract of sale is not shown
to have been in writing and signed by Orense
o BUT Orense testified that he consented to such sale during the trial
thus, the principal is bound to abide by the consequences of his agency
as though it had actually been given in writing