Submitted by: Ian Ben Payoyo

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 for
respondent, is the owner of the land with an the simple fact that the law
area of 1,939 sq meters. expressly provides for the
2. In March 1984, the respondent accepted the written requirement when a
offer of herein petitioners for the purchase of sale of piece of land is
a 200 sq meter portion of Revelen’s lot. 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
Metrobank Corporation and Spouses Ang filed a case for a
G.R. No. 190277 sum of money against respondent, Absolute
Management before the RTC. Respondent filed
its answer and incorporated a third-party
complaint against petitioner, Metropolitan
Bank.
2. On September 5, 2005, RTC issued an Order
directing petitioner to produce and allow
private respondent to copy, microfilm copies of
several checks and the bank ledgers of two
accounts.
3. On November 10, 2006, the trial court set the
case for pre-trail, when the counsels were
asked to produce their respective
authorizations to appear at the said hearing.
The counsel for the petitioner manifested that
her authority to appear for petitioner was
submitted at the first pre-trial hearing in 2004.
respectfully submit that I
disagree with the Supreme
Court and agree with the
ruling of Court of Appeals in
saying that;
“The presumption in favor
of the counsel’s authority to
appear in behalf of a client is
a strong one. A lawyer is not
even required to present a
written authorization from
the client. In fact, the
absence of a formal notice
of entry of appearance will
not invalidate the acts
performed by the counsel in
his client’s name.”
 Submitted by: Ian Ben Payoyo

4. Petitioner’s counsel was given the chance to In such a case the order
over the records to look for the Secretary’s made by the RTC in allowing
Certificate she allegedly submitted in 2004. the lawyer to search the
However she failed to show any written court records for the earlier
authority, as a result, RTC upon motion of submitted SPA was
respondent declared petitioner in default. improper. For the lawyer
5. CA, upon appeal reversed ruling of the RTC in who is not familiar with the
declaring in default the petitioner. record keeping of said court
ISSUE: could not possibly be able to
Whether or not, a Special Power of Attorney need ascertain in finding such
not be presented in court during pre-trial hearings document which was not in
since the authority of the lawyer to appear in behalf her duty to keep.
of his client is presumed?
Rather what should have
RULING: done by the RTC, instead of
YES, the Supreme Court stated in this case that allowing the motion to
consistently with the mandatory character of the pre- default was to allow that the
trial, the Rules oblige not only the lawyers but the lawyer be allowed to follow
parties as well to appear for this purpose before the up on said authorization on
Court, and when a party “fails to appear at a pre-trial the next hearing date or
conference he may be non-suited or considered as in could be to allow the
default”. And in those instances where a party may not rescheduling of said pre-trial
himself be present at the pre-trial, and another person procedure pursuant to the
substitutes for him or his lawyer undertakes to appear Rules of Court.
not only as an attorney but in substitution of the
client’s person, it is imperative for that of the 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 that
Mercado 1. In the local elections of 1995, respondent vied no evidence was submitted
G.R. No. 167812 for the gubernatorial post in Pampanga. Upon by the petitioner in proving
respondent’s request, petitioner, owner of JMG that the respondent’s sister-
Publishing House, a printing shop located in San in-law was authorized by the
Fernando, Pampanga, submitted to respondent former to accept the cash
draft samples and price quotation of campaign advance.
materials.
2. According to the claims of the petitioner, If it was within his
respondent’s wife had told him that knowledge that Lilian was
respondent already approved his price acting merely as an agent in
quotation and that he could start printing the receiving the receipt issued
campaign materials, hence he proceeded doing by Lilian in this case, the
so. petitioner should have
3. Given the urgency and limited time to do the already questioned why she
job, petitioner availed the services of Metro merely signed in her
Angeles Printing and of St. Joseph Printing personal capacity and not in
Press, owned by his daughter Jennifer Gozun behalf of respondent.
and mother Epifania Gozun.
4. Petitioner delivered the campaign materials to As a businessman despite
respondent’s headquarters. that fact the he was
5. Meanwhile on March 31, 1995, respondent’s compadres with the
sister-in-law, Lilian Soriano, obtained from respondent in this case, the
petitioner should have been
Submitted by: Ian Ben Payoyo

petitioner “cash advance” of Php 253,000 more careful in his business

allegedly for the allowance of poll watchers. transactions so as not to
6. Later he sent respondent a Statement of make presumptions that
Account in total amount of Php 2,177,906 would lead to the issues of
itemized as follows: Php 640,310 for JMG this case.
Publishing, Php 837,696 for Metro Angeles
Printing, Php 446,900 for St. Joseph Printing
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.
 Submitted by: Ian Ben Payoyo

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 that
meters and located in Makati City. The the respondent heirs in this
properties contain a large residential dwelling, case where not the proper
a smaller house and other improvements. party or contesting the deed
2. The Spouse had three children, Roland, Cesar of sale executed by
and Lily Bravo. Cesar died without issue, Lily Mauricio. Because the law
married David Diaz and had a son David Diaz Jr. expressly reserves said
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 Supreme
whatsoever and wherever situated or any Court. Thereby not
interest therein”. Mauricio subsequently dismissing their rights as co-
mortgaged the properties to Philippine owners of the properties in
National Bank, for Php 10,000 and Php 5,000. dispute as the legal heirs of
4. On October 25, 1970, Mauricio executed a the Spouses Bravo in this
Deed of Sale with assumption of Real estate 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
Submitted by: Ian Ben Payoyo

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.