SUGGESTED READINGS (7)

Civil Law Review II

CM School of Law

SUGGESTED READINGS
(Laws on Agency/Commodatum/Mutuum/Deposit)

1. Urban Bank, Inc. vs. Magdaleno M. Peňa, G.R. No. 145817, October 19,
2011. (Elements of a contract of agency).
2. Sps. Joselina and Antonio Alcantara, and Spouses Josefino Rubi and Annie
Distor-Rubi vs. Brigida L. Nido, as Attorney-in-Fact of Revelen N. Srivastava,
G.R. No. 165133, April 19, 2010. (As a general rule, a contract of agency
may be oral. However, it must be written when the law requires a specific
form. Article 1878 paragraph 7 of the NCC expressly requires a special
power of attorney before an agent can loan or borrow money in behalf of
the principal. Article 1878 does not state that the authority be in writing.
As long as the mandate is express, such authority may be oral or written).
3. Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Sps. Cayetano, G.R. No. 179909,
January 25, 2010. (It is a general rule in the law on 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 not bind the principal but it will bind the
agent only. It is not enough merely that the agent was in fact authorized to
make the mortgage, if he has not acted in the name of the principal.)
4. Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. (MMPCI) vs. Atty. Pedro Linsangan,
G.R. No. 151319, November 22, 2004. (It is settled that persons dealing
with an agent are bound at their peril to ascertain not only the fact of
agency but also the nature and extent of the agent’s authority. If he does
not make such inquiry, he is chargeable with knowledge of the agent’s
authority and his ignorance of that authority is not an excuse.)
5. Piňeda vs. CA, et. al., G.R. No. 105562, September 27, 1993. (A person
dealing with an agent must also act with ordinary prudence and reasonable
diligence. Obviously, if he knows or has good reason to believe that the
agent is exceeding his authority, he cannot claim protection.)

6. Marcelino E. Lopez, et. al. vs. CA and Primex Corporation, G.R. No. 163959,
August 1, 2018. (One of the modes of extinguishing a contract of agency is
by the death of either the principal or the agent. Due to the death of the
principal which extinguishes the agency, it should follow a fortiori that any
act of the agent after the death of his principal should be held void ab initio
unless the act fell under the exceptions established under Article 1930 and
Article 1931 of the Civil Code. The exceptions should be strictly construed.)
7. Colito T. Pajuyo vs. CA and Eddie Guevarra, G.R. No. 146364, June 3, 2004.
(Where the accommodation is not essentially gratuitous since the occupant
is obligated to maintain the property in good condition, it makes the
contract different from a commodatum. Its effect is different from that of a
 commodatum as the parties are treated to have entered into a relationship
based on tolerance as one that is akin to a landlord-tenant relationship
where the withdrawal of permission would result in the termination of the
lease. The tenant’s withholding of the property would then be unlawful.)
8. Rex Sorongon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 230669, June 16,
2021. (The act of lending a thing gave rise to a contract of commodatum
between owner and the borrower; in which case, the latter does not
acquire ownership over the thing borrowed and had the duty to return the
same thing to the lender. Failure to account upon demand for funds or
properties held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.)
9. Spouses Eduardo and Lydia Silos vs. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No.
181045, July 2, 2014. (The imposition of interest rate that is left solely to
the lender without giving prior notice to and securing the consent of the
borrowers is of contracts. a void stipulation because it is repugnant to the
of mutuality of contracts. Further, excessive interest and penalties not
revealed in disclosure statement issued by banks, even if stipulated in the
promissory note, cannot be given effect under the Truth in Lending Act.)
10.Anchor Savings Bank (ASB) vs. Pinzman Development Corporation, G.R. No.
192304, August 13, 2014. (The imposition of unconscionable interest on
loans without any prior agreement thereto makes the foreclosure
proceeding void).
11.Villa Crista Monte Realty and Development Corp. vs. Equitable-PCI Bank,
etc. G.R. No. G.R. No. 208336, November 21, 2018. (The re-adjustment of
interest rate imposed on outstanding loans, if agreed by the parties, even
without a corresponding de-escalation clause expressly agreed upon, may
validate the contract).
12.Hermosina Estores vs. Sps. Arturo and Laura Supangan, G.R. No. 175139,
April 18, 2012 (Even if the transaction involved is a conditional deed of sale,
the stipulation governing the return of the money is considered forbearance
of money which required payment of interest at the rate of 12%. Here, it
was found out that the unwarranted withholding of money which rightfully
belongs to spouses-respondents amounts to forbearance of money which
can be considered as an involuntary loan).
13. Nunelon R. Marquez vs. Elisan Credit Corporation, G.R. No. 194642, April
6, 2015. (The stipulation imposing excessive rates of interest and penalties
are void for being contrary to morals, if not against the law. It was
repeatedly ruled that while Central Bank Circular No. 905-82 which took
effect on January 1, 1983 effectively removed the ceiling on interest rates
for both secured an unsecured loans, regardless of maturity, nothing in the
circular could possibly be read as granting carte blanche authority to
lenders to raise interest rates to levels that would unduly burdensome to
the point of oppression on their borrowers.)
14. Durban Apartments Corp. vs. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp., G.R.
No. 179419, January 12, 2011. (When a necessary deposit is constituted
under Art. 1998 of the NCC in relation to Art. 1962, the depositary comply
with its obligation to safe keep and to return the thing deposited,
otherwise, it is liable for damages.)

-Nothing Follows-