1. Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.

(2006

!acts"#he case involves the $%i&al&al Gold 'ush Area( (%i&al&al, a rich tract o) *ineral
landlocated inside the Agusan+%avao+Surigao !orest 'eserve in %avao del ,orte and %avao -riental.
Sincethe earl. 1/00s, %i&al&al has 1een stor*ed 1. con)licts 1rought a1out 1. nu*erous *ining
clai*s over it.-n March 10, 1/06, Marcopper Mining Corporation (MMC &as granted an
2xploration 3er*it(23 144 1. the 5ureau o) Mines and Geo+Sciences (5MG. A long 1attle ensued
1et&een Apex andMMC &ith the latter see6ing the cancellation o) the *ining clai*s o) Apex on the
ground that such*ining clai*s &ere &ithin a )orest reservation (Agusan+%avao+Surigao !orest
'eserve and thus theac7uisition on *ining rights should have 1een through an application )or a
per*it to prospect &ith the5!% and not through registration o) a %-8 &ith the 5MG. 9hen it
reached the SC in 1//1, the Courtruled against Apex holding that the area is a )orest reserve and thus
it should have applied )or a per*it to prospect &ith the 5!%.-n !e1ruar. 16 1//:,
MMC assigned all its rights to 23 144 to Southeast Mindanao GoldMining Corporation (S2M
, a do*estic corporation &hich is alleged to 1e a 100;+o&ned su1sidiar. o) MMC. Su1se7uentl.,
5MG registered S2M<s Mineral 3roduction Sharing Agree*ent (M3SAapplication and the %eed o)
Assign*ent. Several oppositions &ere )iled. #he 3anel o) Ar1itrators created 1. the %2,' upheld the
validit. o) 23 144.
%uring the pendenc. o) the case, %2,' A- ,o. 2002+10 &as issued declaring ane*ergenc. situation
in the %i&al&al Gold 'ush Area and ordering the stoppage o) all *iningoperations therein.
Issues"1.

9=, 23 144 and its su1se7uent trans)er to S2M is valid.2.

9=, the %2,' Secretar. has authorit. to issue %A- 66 declaring >2/ hectares o) the areascovered
1. the Agusan+%avao+Surigao !orest 'eserve as non+)orest lands and open to s*all+scale *ining
purposes.4.

9ho (a*ong petitioners Apex and 5alite has priorit. right over %i&al&al?@eld='atio"1.

I,AA8I%. -ne o) the ter*s and conditions o) 23 144 is" $#hat this per*it shall 1e )or the
exclusive use and 1ene)it o) the per*ittee or his dul. authoriBed agents
and shall 1e used )or *ineral exploration purposes onl. and )or no other purpose.( 9hile it *a. 1e
true that S2M is a100; su1sidiar. corporation o) MMC, there is no sho&ing that the )or*er is the
dul. authoriBedagent o) the latter. As such, the
assign*ent is null and void
as it directl. contravenes the ter*sand conditions o) the grant o) 23 144.a.

#he %eed o) Assign*ent &as a total a1dication o) MMC<s rights over the per*it.
It is not a*ere grant o) authorit. to S2M as agent. 1.

'eason )or the stipulation.
2xploration per*its are strictl. granted to entities or individuals possessing the resources and
capa1ilit. to underta6e *ining operations. 9ithout such acondition, non+7uali)ied entities or
individuals could circu*vent the strict re7uire*entsunder the la& 1. the si*ple expedienc. o)
ac7uiring the per*it )ro* the original per*ittee.c.

Separate personalit..
#he )act that S2M is a 100; su1sidiar. o) MMC does notauto*aticall. *a6e it an agent o) MMC. A
corporation is an arti)icial 1eing invested 1. la&&ith a personalit. separate and distinct )ro* persons
co*posing it as &ell as )ro* that o) an.other legal entit. to &hich it *a. 1e related. A1sent an. clear
proo) to the contrar., S2M is aseparate and distinct entit. )ro* MMC.d.

%octrine o) piercing the corporate veil inapplica1le.
-nl. in cases &here the corporate)iction &as used as a shield )or )raud, illegalit. or ine7uit. *a. the
veil 1e pierced andre*oved. #he doctrine o) piercing the corporate veil cannot there)ore 1e used as a
vehicle toco**it prohi1ited acts. #he assign*ent o) the per*it in )avor o) S2M is utiliBed
tocircu*vent the condition o) nontrans)era1ilit. o) the exploration per*it. #o allo& S2M to

avail itsel) o) this doctrine and to approve the validit. o) the assign*ent is tanta*ount tosanctioning
an illegal act &hich is &hat the doctrine precisel. see6s to )orestall.e.

3% :64 re7uires approval o) Secretar. o) %2,'.
Also, 3% :64 (Mineral 'esources%evelop*ent %ecree, &hich is the governing la& &hen the
assign*ent &as executed,explicitl. re7uires that the trans)er or assign*ent o) *ining rights, including
the right toexplore a *ining area, *ust 1e &ith the prior approval o) the Secretar. o) %2,'. Such is
not present in this case.).

23 144 expired 1. non+rene&al.
Although 23 144 &as extended )or 12 *onths until Cul. 6,1//:, MMC never rene&ed its per*it prior
and a)ter its expiration.9ith the expiration o) 23 144 on Cul. 6, 1//:, MMC lost an. right to the
%i&al&al Gold 'ushArea. S2M, on the other hand, has not ac7uired an. right to the said area 1ecause
the trans)er o) 23 144 in its )avor is invalid. @ence, 1oth MMC and S2M have not ac7uired an. vested
rightover the area covered 1. 23 144.2.

,-. #he %2,' Secretar. has no po&er to convert )orest reserves into non+)orest reserves. Such
po&er is vested &ith the 3resident. #he %2,' Secretar. *a. onl. reco**end to the 3resident&hich
)orest reservations are to 1e &ithdra&n )ro* the coverage thereo). #hus, %A- ,o. 66 isnull and void
)or having 1een issued in excess o) the %2,' Secretar.<s authorit..4.

(Since it<s 1een held that neither MMC nor S2M has an. right over %i&al&al, it is thusnecessar. to
*a6e a
deter*ination
o) the existing right o) the re*aining clai*ants, petitioners Apex and 5alite, in the dispute.

#he issue on &ho has priorit. right over %i&al&al is dee*edoverta6en 1. the issuance o)
3rocla*ation 2/> and %A- ,o. 2002+10, 1oth 1eingconstitutionall.+sanctioned acts o) the 2xecutive
5ranch
. Mining operations in the %i&al&alMineral 'eservation are no&, there)ore, &ithin the )ull control o)
the State through theexecutive 1ranch.
3ursuant to Sec. D o) 'A >/:2, the State can either" (1 directl. underta6e theexploration, develop*ent
and utiliBation o) the area or (2 opt to a&ard *ining operations in the*ineral reservation to private
entities including petitioners Apex and 5alite, i) it &ishes. #heexercise o) this prerogative lies &ith the
2xecutive %epart*ent over &hich courts &ill notinter)ere.
2. -'I2,# AI' S2'AC2S A,% @-#28 '23'2S2,#A#IA2S A CA
!AC#S"
A*erican Airlines, inc, an air carrier o))ering passenger and air cargo transportation in the 3hils, and
-rient Air Services and @otel 'epresentatives entered into a General Sales Agenc. Agree*ent
&here1. the )or*er authoriBed the latter to act as its exclusive general sales agent &ithin the 3hils )or
the sale o) air passenger transportation So*e o) the pertinent provisions are"
-rient Air Services shall per)or* these services"
a. solict and pro*ote passenger tra))ic )or the services o) A*erican and i) necessar., e*plo. sta))
co*peten and su))icient to do so
1. provide and *aintain a suita1le area in its place o) 1usiness to 1e used exclusivel. )or the
transaction o) the 1usiness o) A*erican
c. arrange )or distri1ution o) A*erican<s ti*eta1les, tari))s and pro*otional *aterial to sales agents
nad the general pu1lic in the assigned territor.
d. service and supervise sales agents in the assigned territor. including i) re7uired 1. A*erican the
control o) re*ittances and co**issions retained
e. hold out a passenger reservation )acilit. to sales agents and general pu1lic in the assigned territor.
Alleging that -rient Air had reneged on its o1ligations under the Agree*ent 1. )ailing to re*it the net
proceeds o) sale in the a*ount o) ES F 2D:,:00, A*erican Air 1. itsel) undertoo6 the collection o) the
proceeds o) tic6ets sold originall. 1. -rient Air and ter*inated )orth&ith the Agree*ent
A*erican Air instituted suit against -rient Air )or Accounting &ith 3reli*inar. Attach*ent or
Garnish*ent, Mandator. InGunction and 'estraining -rder averring the 1asis )or the ter*ination o) the
Agree*ent as &ell as -rient Air<s previous record o) )ailures $to pro*ptl. settle past outstanding
re)unds o) &hich there &ere availa1le )unds in the possession o) the -rient Air to the da*age and
preGudice o) A*erican Air
#C ruled in )avor o) -rient Air to &hich the Inter*ediate Appelalate Court (no& CA a))ir*ed #C<s
decision &ith *odi)ications &ith respect to *onetar. a&ards granted.
ISSE2" 9=, -rient Air is entitled to the 4; overriding co**ission
'E8I,G" Hes
It is a &ell settled principle that in the interpretation o) a contract, the entiret. thereo) *ust 1e ta6en
into consideration to ascertain the *eaning o) its provisions. #he various stipulations in the contract
*ust 1e read together to give e))ect to all
#he Agree*ent, &hen interpreted in accordance &ith the )oregoing principles, entitles -rient Air to
the 4; overriding co**ission 1ased on total revenue or as re)erred to 1. the parties, $total )lo&n
revenues(.
As the designated General Sales Agent o) A*erican Air, -rient Air &as responsi1le )or the pro*otion
and *ar6eting o) A*erican Air<s services )or air passenger transportation and the solicitation o) sales
there)or. In return )or such e))orts and services, -rient Air &as to 1e paid co**issions o) 2 6inds"
)irst, a sales agenc. co**ission, ranging )ro* > to 0; o) tari)) )ares and charges )ro* sales 1. -rient
Air &hen *ade on A*erican Air tic6et stoc6I and second, an overriding co**ission o) 4; o) tari))
)ares and charges )or all sales o) passenger transportation over A*erican Air services.
#he second t.pe o) co**issions &ould accrue )or sales o) A*erican Air services *ade not on its
tic6et stoc6et 1ut on the tic6et stoc6 o) other air carriers sold 1. such carriers or other authoriBed
tic6eting )acilities or travel agents.
In addition, it is clear )ro* the records that A*erican Air &as the part. responsi1le )or the preparation
o) the Agree*ent. Conse7uentl., an. a*1iguit. in this $contract o) adhesion( is to 1e ta6en $contra
pro)erente*( Jconstrued against the part. &ho cause the a*1iguit. and could have avoided it 1. the
exercise o) a little *ore care.
4. #uaBon, et. Al. vs. @eirs o) 5artolo*e 'a*os. G.'. ,o. 1D6262, Cul. 1:, 200D
!acts" @eirs o) 5artolo*e 'a*os alleged that spouses 8eonilo and Maria #uaBon purchased a total o)
0,426 cavans o) rice )ro* Kthe deceased 5artolo*eL 'a*os Kpredecessor+in+interest o) respondentsL.
#hat o) this K7uantit.,L . . . onl. :,:4> cavans Khave 1een paid )or so )arL, leaving unpaid 4,00/ cavans
valued at 31,211,/1/.00. In pa.*ent there)or, the spouses #uaBon issued several #raders 'o.al 5an6
chec6s. 5ut &hen these chec6s &ere encashed, all o) the chec6s 1ounced due to insu))icienc. o) )unds.
K'espondentsL advanced that 1e)ore issuing said chec6sK,L spouses #uaBon alread. 6ne& that the. had
no availa1le )und to support the chec6s, and the. )ailed to provide )or the pa.*ent o) these despite
repeated de*ands *ade on the*.
!or their part, de)endants denied having purchased rice )ro* K5artolo*eL 'a*os. #he. alleged that it
&as Magdalena 'a*os, &i)e o) said deceased, &ho o&ned and traded the *erchandise and Maria
#uaBon &as *erel. her agent. #he. argued that it &as 2vangeline Santos &ho &as the 1u.er o) the
rice and issued the chec6s to Maria #uaBon as pa.*ents there)or. In good )aithK,L the chec6s &ere
received K1. petitionerL )ro* 2vangeline Santos and turned over to 'a*os &ithout 6no&ing that these
&ere not )unded.
Issue" 9-, there &as a contract o) agenc. 1et&een spouses #uaBon and spouses 'a*os
@eld" there &as no contract o) Agenc.
'atio" In a contract o) agenc., one 1inds onesel) to render so*e service or to do so*ething in
representation or on 1ehal) o) another, &ith the latterMs consent or authorit.. / #he )ollo&ing are the
ele*ents o) agenc." (1 the partiesM consent, express or i*plied, to esta1lish the relationshipI (2 the
o1Gect, &hich is the execution o) a Guridical act in relation to a third personI (4 the representation, 1.
&hich the one &ho acts as an agent does so, not )or onesel), 1ut as a representativeI (: the li*itation
that the agent acts &ithin the scope o) his or her authorit.. 10 As the 1asis o) agenc. is representation,
there *ust 1e, on the part o) the principal, an actual intention to appoint, an intention naturall.
in)era1le )ro* the principalMs &ords or actions. In the sa*e *anner, there *ust 1e an intention on the
part o) the agent to accept the appoint*ent and act upon it. A1sent such *utual intent, there is
generall. no agenc.. 11
#his Court )inds no reversi1le error in the )indings o) the courts a 7uo that petitioners &ere the rice
1u.ers the*selvesI the. &ere not *ere agents o) respondents in their rice dealership. #he 7uestion o)
&hether a contract is one o) sale or o) agenc. depends on the intention o) the parties.
#he Court notes that petitioners, on their o&n 1ehal), sued 2vangeline Santos )or collection o) the
a*ounts represented 1. the 1ounced chec6s, in a separate civil case that the. sought to 1e
consolidated &ith the current one. I), as the. clai*, the. &ere *ere agents o) respondents, petitioners
should have 1rought the suit against Santos )or and on 1ehal) o) their alleged principal, in accordance
&ith Section 2 o) 'ule 4 o) the 'ules on Civil 3rocedure. 1D #heir )iling a suit against her in their o&n
na*es negates their clai* that the. acted as *ere agents in selling the rice o1tained )ro* 5artolo*e
'a*os.
#uaBon v. @eirs o) 5artolo*e 'a*os
!acts"
'espondents alleged that on a relevant date, spouses #uaBon purchased )ro* their predecessor+in+
interest cavans o) rice. #hat on the total nu*1er o) cavans, onl. a certain portion has 1een paid )or. In
pa.*ent thereo), chec6s have 1een issued 1ut on present*ent, the chec6s &ere dishonored.
'espondents alleged that since spouses anticipated the )orthco*ing suit against the*, the. *ade
)ictitious sales over their properties. As de)ense, the spouses averred that it &as the &i)e o) 5artolo*e
&ho e))ected the sale and that Maria &as *erel. her agent in selling the rice. #he true 1u.er o) the
cavans &as Santos. #he spouses )urther averred that &hen 'a*os got the chec6 )ro* Santos, she too6
it in good )aith and didnMt 6ne& that the sa*e &ere un)unded.
Issue"
9hether or not there is a contract o) agenc..
'uling"
,o. I) it &as trul. the intention o) the parties to have a contract o) agenc., then &hen the spouses
sued Santos on a separate civil action, the. should have instituted the sa*e on 1ehal) and )or the
respondents. #he. didnMt do so. #he )iling in their o&n na*es negates their clai* that the. acted as
*ere agents in selling the rice.
:.8aureano #. Angeles vs. 3hilippine ,ational 'ail&a.s (3,' and 'odol)o !lores,August 41, 2006
G.'. ,o. 1D0120
!acts"
'espondent 3hilippine ,ational 'ail&a.s (3,' in)or*ed a certain
Gaudencio'o*ualdeB('o*ualdeB, hereina)ter that it has accepted the latter<s o))er to 1u.the
3,'<sscrap=unservicea1le rails located in %el Car*en and 8u1ao, 3a*panga at 31,400.00
and32,100.00 per *etric ton, respectivel., )or the total a*ount o) 3/6,600.00. 'o*ualdeB paid
thepurchase price and addressed a letter to Att.. Cipriano%iBon, 3,'<s Acting 3urchasing Agent.#he
letter authoriBed 8IN2##2 '. 9ICA,C-to 1e his ('o*ualdeB la&)ul representative in
the&ithdra&al o) the scrap=unservicea1le rails a&arded to hi*. !urther*ore, the original cop. o) the
a&ard &hich indicates the &aiver o) rights, interest and participation in )avor o) 8iBetter '.9iGanco
&as also given.#he 8iBette '. 9iGanco &as petitionerMs no& deceased &i)e. #hat ver. sa*e da.,
8iBettere7uested the 3,' to trans)er the location o) &ithdra&al )or the reason that
thescrap=unservicea1le rails located in %el Car*en and 8u1ao, 3a*panga &ere not read. )or
hauling.#he 3,' granted said re7uest and allo&ed 8iBette to &ithdra& scrap=unservicea1le railsin
Murcia, Capas and San Miguel, #arlac instead. @o&ever, 3,' su1se7uentl. suspended the&ithdra&al
in vie& o) &hat it considered as docu*entar. discrepancies coupled 1. reportedpil)erages o) over
3D00,000.00 &orth o) 3,' scrap properties in #arlac.Conse7uentl., thespouses Angeles de*anded the
re)und o) the a*ount o) 3/6,000.00. #he 3,', ho&ever,re)used to pa., alleging that as per deliver.
receipt dul. signed 1. 8iBette, D:.6D0 *etric tons o) unservicea1le rails had alread. 1een &ithdra&n.
#he spouses Angeles )iled suit against the3,' )or speci)ic per)or*ance and da*ages 1e)ore the
'egional #rial Court. 8iBette 9. Angelespassed a&a. and &as su1stituted 1. her heirs, a*ong &ho*
is her hus1and, herein petitioner 8aureno #. Angeles.#he trial court, on the postulate that the spouses
Angeles are not the real parties+in+interest,rendered Gudg*ent dis*issing their co*plaint )or lac6 o)
cause o) action. As held 1. the court,8iBette &as *erel. a representative o) 'o*ualdeB in the
&ithdra&al o) scrap or unservicea1lerails a&arded to hi* and not an assignee to the latterMs rights &ith
respect to the a&ard.3etitioner appealed &ith the Court o) Appeals &hich dis*issed the appeal and
a))ir*ed that o) the trial court.
Issue"
9hether or not the CA erred in a))ir*ing the trial courtMs holding that petitioner and his spouse,as
plainti))s
a 7uo
, had no cause o) action as the. &ere not the real parties+in+interest in thiscase.
@eld"
,o.#he CA<s conclusion, a))ir*ator. o) that o) the trial court, is that 8iBette &as not an assignee,1ut
*erel. an agent &hose authorit. &as li*ited to the &ithdra&al o) the scrap rails, hence,&ithout
personalit. to sue.9here agenc. exists, the third part.Ms (in this case, 3,'Ms lia1ilit. ona contract is to
the principal and not to the agent and the relationship o) the third part. to theprincipal is the sa*e as
that in a contract in &hich there is no agent. ,or*all., the agent hasneither rights nor lia1ilities as
against the third part.. @e cannot thus sue or 1e sued on thecontract. Since a contract *a. 1e violated
onl. 1. the parties thereto as against each other, thereal part.+in+interest, either as plainti)) or
de)endant in an action upon that contract *ust,generall., 1e a contracting part..#he legal situation is,
ho&ever, di))erent &here an agent is constituted as an assignee. In such acase, the agent *a., in his
o&n 1ehal), sue on a contract *ade )or his principal, as an assigneeo) such contract. #he rulere7uiring
ever. action to 1e prosecuted in the na*e o) the real part.+in+interest recogniBes the assign*ent o)
rights o) action and also recogniBesthat &hen one hasa right assigned to hi*, he is then the real part.+
in+interest and *a. *aintain an action uponsuch clai* or right.
9@2'2!-'2
, the petition is %2,I2% and the assailed decision o) the CA is A!!I'M2% Costsagainst the
petitioner.
D. EH vs CA 41: scra 6/ KG.'. ,o. 10/DD>. ,ove*1er 2/, 2000L
C-S2 EH and his Spouse G82,%A C. EH and GI8%A 8. CA'%282NA, petitioners, vs. C-E'# -!
A332A8S and #2-%-'- 8. CA'%282NA, respondents.

!acts" #he hus1and o) petitioner Gilda CardeleBa, 2rnesto CardeleBa Sr. su))ered stro6e &hich has
rendered hi* co*atose, and in line &ith the said illness his &i)e Gilda see6s to dispose propert. o) her
hus1and in )avor o) co+petitioners daughter Glenda CardaleBa+E. and her hus1and Cose E..
'espondent #eodoro CardeleBa &hich is a son o) Gilda and 2rnesto Cr., )iled a petition to the Iloilo
'#C upon 6no&ledge o) the pending sale o) his )ather<s real propert. contending that there shall 1e a
court+appointed guardian in ad*inistering his )ather<s propert. &hile the senior CardeleBa is
incapacitated to do so.
3etitioner contends that the sale o) her hus1and<s propert. in 8ot :2/1 and its i*prove*ents are
necessar. as to cover costs o) his hospitaliBation.
9hile the proceedings are still ongoing, petitioner has sold the said propert. to her co+petitioners
daughter and son+in+la&. #eodoro appealed the said sale to the Court o) Appeals &hich has li6e&ise
reversed the order o) the '#C Iloilo. 3etitioner su1*itted an appeal via certiorari o) the decision to the
Supre*e Court
Issue" 9hether or not petitioner Gilda 8. CardeleBa as the &i)e o) 2rnesto CardeleBa, Sr. &ho su))ered a
stro6e, a cere1rovascular accident, rendering hi* co*atose, &ithout *otor and *ental )aculties, and
could not *anage their conGugal partnership propert. *a. assu*e sole po&ers o) ad*inistration o) the
conGugal propert. and dispose o) a parcel o) land &ith its i*prove*ents.
@eld" #he court ruled in )avor o) respondent #eodoro, )urther speci).ing that petitioner onl. holds the
po&er o) ad*inistration and not the po&er o) disposition and encu*1rance o) propert. as these
po&ers re7uire consent o) the other spouse or court authorit.. !urther*ore, petitioner onl. sought
guardianship o) propert. and has )ailed to allege that 2rnesto CardaleBa Sr., &ould have consented on
the said sale o) propert..
6. A,#-,I- 5. 5A8#ANA' v. @-,-'A582 -M5E%SMA,, 2E8-GI- M. MA'IA,-,
C-S2%. CIM2,2N, C'.,#-'I5I- 2. I8A-, C'. and 2',2S#- '. SA82,GA D10SC'A >:
%ece*1er 6, 2006 (@o& su1Gect *atter ornature o) the action deter*inedCase %igest
!AC#S"3aciencia 'egala o&ns a seven (>+hectare )ishpond located at Sas*uan, 3a*panga.@er
Attorne.+in+!act !austino '.Mercado leased the )ishpond to 2duardo 8apid )or a three (4+.ear
period. 8essee 2duardo 8apid in turn su1+leased the)ishpond to 'a)ael 8opeB during thelast seven (>
*onths o) the original lease. 2rnesto Salenga &as hired 1. 2duardo8apid as)ishpond &atch*an
(1ante+encargado. In the su1+lease, 'a)ael 8opeB rehired respondent Salenga. 2rnestoSalenga
Salenga, sentthe de*and letter to 'a)ael 8opeB and 8ourdes 8apid )or unpaid salaries and non+
pa.*ento) the 10; share in the harvest. Salenga &as pro*ted to )ile a Co*plaint1e)ore the 3rovincial
Agrarian 'e)or*AdGudication 5oard (3A'A5, 'egion III,San !ernando, 3a*panga doc6eted as
%A'A5 Case ,o. DD2+3</4 entitled2rnesto '. Salenga v. 'a)ael 8. 8opeB and 8ourdes 8. 8apid)or
Maintenance o) 3eace)ul 3ossession, Collection o) Su*o) Mone. and Supervision o) @arvest.3ending
resolution o) the agrarian case, the instant case &as instituted1. petitioner Antonio 5altaBar,
anallegednephe& o) !austino Mercado, through a Co*plaint+A))idavitagainst private respondents
1e)ore the -))ice o) the-*1uds*an &hich &asdoc6eted as -M5+1+/:+4:2D entitledAntonio 5.
5altaBar v. 2ulogio Mariano, Cose Ci*eneB, Cr.,#ori1io Ilao, Cr. and 2rnesto Salenga)or violation o) 'A
401/. 3etitioner *aintains that respondent Ilao, Cr. had no Gurisdiction tohear and act on %A'A5 Case
,o. DD2+3</4 )iled 1. respondent Salenga as there &as notenanc. relation1et&een respondent Salenga
and 'a)ael 8. 8opeB, and thus, the co*plaint &as dis*issi1le on its)ace.ISSE2"9hether or not the
petitioner has legal standing to pursue the instant petition?9hether or not the-*1uds*an li6e&ise
erred in reversing his o&n resolution &here it &asresolved thataccused as 3rovincial Agrarian
AdGudicator has no Gurisdiction over a co*plaint&here there exist no tenanc.relationship?@28%" #he
Oreal+part.+in interestO is Othe part. &hostands to 1e 1ene)ited or inGured 1. the Gudg*ent in the suit or
the part.entitled to the availso) the suit. #he Co*plaint+A))idavit )iled 1e)ore the -))ice o)
the-*1uds*an, there is no7uestion on his authorit. and legal standing. #he -*1uds*an canact on
anon.*ous co*plaints and*otu proprioin7uire into alleged i*proper o))icial acts or o*issions )ro*
&hatever source, e.g., a ne&spaper.!austino Mercado, isan agent hi*sel) and as such cannot )urther
delegate his agenc. to another. An agentcannotdelegate to another the sa*e agenc.. 'e+delegation o)
the agenc. &ould 1e detri*entalto the principal as the secondagent has no privit. o) contract &ith the
)or*er. In the instant case,petitioner has no privit. o) contract &ith 3aciencia'egala, o&ner o) the
)ishpond and principal o) !austinoMercado. #he )acts clearl. sho& that it &as not the -*1uds*an
through the -S3 &ho allo&edrespondent Ilao, Cr. to su1*it hisCounter+A))idavit. It &as the
Sandigan1a.an &hogranted the pra.ed )or re+investigation and ordered the -S3 toconduct the re+
investigation . #he -S3 si*pl. )ollo&ed the gra)t court<s directive to conduct the re+
investigationa)terthe Counter+A))idavit o) respondent Ilao, Cr. &as )iled. Indeed, petitioner did not
contest nor 7uestion the August 2/,1//> -rder o) the gra)t court. Moreover, petitioner did not )ile an.
repl.+a))idavit in the re+investigation despite notice.
#he nature o) the case is deter*ined 1. the settled rule that Gurisdictionover the su1Gect *atter
isdeter*ined 1. the allegations o) the co*plaint.#he nature o) an action is deter*ined 1. the
*aterialaver*ents in theco*plaint and the character o) the relie) sought not 1. the de)ensesasserted in
theans&er or *otion to dis*iss.'espondent Salenga<s co*plaint and itsattach*ent clearl. spells out
the Gurisdictional allegations thathe is an agriculturaltenant in possession o) the )ishpond and is a1out
to 1e eGected )ro* it,clearl.,respondent Ilao, Cr. could not 1e )aulted in assu*ing Gurisdictionas said
allegations characteriBe anagricultural dispute.
5esides,
&hatever de)ense asserted in an ans&er or *otion to dis*iss is not to1econsidered in resolving the
issue on Gurisdiction as it cannot 1e *ade dependentupon the allegations o) the de)endant.
9@2'2!-'2, the instant petition is %2,I2% )or lac6 o) *erit, and the -rder and the -cto1er 40,
1//0 Me*orandu* o) the -))ice o) the Special 3rosecutor in Cri*inal Case ,o. 24661(-M5+1+/:+
4:2D are here1. A!!I'M2%
>. SE,AC2 I,#2',A#I-,A8 MA,AG2M2,# S2'AIC2S, I,C. v. ,8'C
G.'. ,o. 161>D>I Canuar. 2D, 2006
3onente" C. Carpio+Morales
!AC#S" 'espondent %ivina Monteher*oBo is a do*estic helper deplo.ed to #ai&an 1. Sunace
International Manage*ent Services (Sunace under a 12+*onth contract. Such e*plo.*ent &as *ade
&ith the assistance o) #ai&anese 1ro6er 2d*und 9ang. A)ter the expiration o) the contract,
Monteher*oBo continued her e*plo.*ent &ith her #ai&anese e*plo.er )or another 2 .ears.
9hen Monteher*oBo returned to the 3hilippines, she )iled a co*plaint against Sunace, 9ang, and her
#ai&anese e*plo.er 1e)ore the ,ational 8a1or 'elations Co**ission (,8'C. She alleges that she
&as underpaid and &as Gailed )or three *onths in #ai&an. She )urther alleges that the 2+.ear extension
o) her e*plo.*ent contract &as &ith the consent and 6no&ledge o) Sunace. Sunace, on the other
hand, denied all the allegations.
#he 8a1or Ar1iter ruled in )avor o) Monteher*oBo and )ound Sunace lia1le thereo). #he ,ational
8a1or 'elations Co**ission and Court o) Appeals a))ir*ed the la1or ar1iter<s decision. @ence, the
)iling o) this appeal.
ISSE2" 9hether or not the 2+.ear extension o) Monteher*oBo<s e*plo.*ent &as *ade &ith the
6no&ledge and consent o) Sunace
@28%" #here is an i*plied revocation o) an agenc. relationship &hen a)ter the ter*ination o) the
original e*plo.*ent contract, the )oreign principal directl. negotiated &ith the e*plo.ee and entered
into a ne& and separate e*plo.*ent contract.
Contrar. to the Court o) Appeals )inding, the alleged continuous co**unication &as &ith the
#ai&anese 1ro6er 9ang, not &ith the )oreign e*plo.er.
#he )inding o) the Court o) Appeals solel. on the 1asis o) the tele)ax *essage &ritten 1. 9ang to
Sunace, that Sunace continuall. co**unicated &ith the )oreign OprincipalO (sic and there)ore &as
a&are o) and had consented to the execution o) the extension o) the contract is *isplaced. #he
*essage does not provide evidence that Sunace &as priv. to the ne& contract executed a)ter the
expiration on !e1ruar. 1, 1//0 o) the original contract. #hat Sunace and the #ai&anese 1ro6er
co**unicated regarding Monteher*oBo<s allegedl. &ithheld savings does not necessaril. *ean that
Sunace rati)ied the extension o) the contract.
As can 1e seen )ro* that letter co**unication, it &as Gust an in)or*ation given to Sunace that
Monteher*oBo had ta6en alread. her savings )ro* her )oreign e*plo.er and that no deduction &as
*ade on her salar.. It contains nothing a1out the extension or Sunace<s consent thereto.
3arentheticall., since the tele)ax *essage is dated !e1ruar. 21, 2000, it is sa)e to assu*e that it &as
sent to enlighten Sunace &ho had 1een directed, 1. Su**ons issued on !e1ruar. 1D, 2000, to appear
on !e1ruar. 20, 2000 )or a *andator. con)erence )ollo&ing Monteher*oBo<s )iling o) the co*plaint
on !e1ruar. 1:, 2000.
'especting the decision o) Court o) Appeals )ollo&ing as agent o) its )oreign principal, KSunaceL
cannot pro)ess ignorance o) such an extension as o1viousl., the act o) its principal extending
KMonteher*oBo<sL e*plo.*ent contract necessaril. 1ound it, it too is a *isapplication, a
*isapplication o) the theor. o) i*puted 6no&ledge.
#he theor. o) i*puted 6no&ledge ascri1es the 6no&ledge o) the agent, Sunace, to the principal,
e*plo.er, not the other &a. around. #he 6no&ledge o) the principal+)oreign e*plo.er cannot,
there)ore, 1e i*puted to its agent Sunace.
#here 1eing no su1stantial proo) that Sunace 6ne& o) and consented to 1e 1ound under the 2+.ear
e*plo.*ent contract extension, it cannot 1e said to 1e priv. thereto. As such, it and its Oo&nerO
cannot 1e held solidaril. lia1le )or an. o) Monteher*oBo<s clai*s arising )ro* the 2+.ear e*plo.*ent
extension. As the ,e& Civil Code provides, Contracts ta6e e))ect onl. 1et&een the parties, their
assigns, and heirs, except in case &here the rights and o1ligations arising )ro* the contract are not
trans*issi1le 1. their nature, or 1. stipulation or 1. provision o) la&. !urther*ore, as Sunace
correctl. points out, there &as an i*plied revocation o) its agenc. relationship &ith its )oreign
principal &hen, a)ter the ter*ination o) the original e*plo.*ent contract, the )oreign principal
directl. negotiated &ith Monteher*oBo and entered into a ne& and separate e*plo.*ent contract in
#ai&an. Article 1/2: o) the ,e& Civil Code states that the agenc. is revo6ed i) the principal directl.
*anages the 1usiness entrusted to the agent, dealing directl. &ith third persons.
0. MA,E28 5. #A,,, vs. 2%EA'%- '. GE88AS and ,-'MA S. GE88AS,
G.'. ,o. 1:4/>0 %ece*1er 4, 2002
!acts"
'espondents, &ere the registered o&ners o) a parcel o) land, the. executed aspecial po&er o)
attorne. authoriBing petitioners #an, a licensed real estate 1ro6er, and hisassociates #ecson and
SaldaPa, to negotiate )or the sale o) the land, at a co**ission o) 4; o) thegross price. #an contacted
the Sisters o) Mar. o) 5anneaux, Inc. (herea)ter, Sisters o) Mar., areligious organiBation interested in
ac7uiring a propert.. #he Sisters, &ho had alread. seen andinspected the land, )ound the sa*e suita1le
)or their purpose and expressed their desire to 1u. it.

@o&ever, the. re7uested that the selling price 1e reduced. 'espondents agreed to sell the
propert. to the Sisters o) Mar.. 3etitioners &ent to see respondents &ho re)used to pa. the
1ro6er<s )ee and alleged that another group o) agents &as responsi1le )or the sale o) land to the
Sisters o) Mar.. 3etitioners )iled a co*plaint against the de)endants )or recover. o) their 1ro6er<s )ee.
#he. alleged that the. &ere the e))icient procuring cause in 1ringing a1out the sale o) the, 1ut that
their e))orts in consu**ating the sale &ere )rustrated 1. the respondents &ho, in evident 1ad )aith,
*alice and in order to evade pa.*ent o) 1ro6er<s )ee, dealt directl. &ith the 1u.er &ho* petitioners
introduced to the*.
Issues"
(1 9hether or not the petitioners are entitled to the 1ro6erage co**ission.(2 An agent distinguished
)ro* a 1ro6er.
'ulings"
(1 #he records sho& that petitioner #an is a licensed real estate 1ro6er, another petitioners his
associates. O5ro6erO as Oone &ho is engaged, )or others, on a co**ission,negotiating contracts
relative to propert. &ith the custod. o) &hich he has no concernI the negotiator 1et&een other parties,
never acting in his o&n na*e 1ut in the na*e o) those &ho e*plo.ed hi*. x x x a 1ro6er is one &hose
occupation is to 1ring the parties together, in *atters o) trade, co**erce or navigation.O #he
petitioners &ere responsi1le )or the introduction o) the representatives o) the Sisters o) Mar. to
respondent.(2 #here &as no dispute as to the role that petitioners pla.ed in the transaction. OAn agent
receives a co**ission upon the success)ul conclusion o) a sale. -n the other hand, a 1ro6er earns his
pa. *erel. 1. 1ringing the 1u.er and the seller together, even i) no sale is eventuall. *ade.O Clearl.,
there)ore, petitioners, as 1ro6ers, should 1e entitled to the co**ission &hether or not the sale o) the
propert. su1Gect *atter o) the contract &as concluded through their e))orts.
/. C-,%2 v CA,
G.'. ,o. 8+:02:2 %ece*1er 1D, 1/02
!AC#S"
1. Margarita Conde, 5ernardo Conde and the petitioner %o*inga Conde, as heirs o) Santiago Conde,
sold &ith right o) repurchase, &ithin ten (10 .ears, a parcel o) agricultural land &ith to Casi*ira
3asagui, *arried to 3io Altera, )or 316D.00.
2. -n 1> April 1/:1, the Cadastral Court o) 8e.te adGudicated 8ot ,o. 0:0 to the AlterasOsu1Gect to
the right o) rede*ption 1. %o*inga Conde.
4. -riginal Certi)icate o) #itle ,o. ,+D4: in the na*e o) the spouses 3io Altera and Casi*ira 3asagui
&as then transcri1ed in the O'egistration 5oo6O o) the 'egistr. o) %eeds o) 8e.te.
:. -n 20 ,ove*1er 1/:D, private respondent 3aciente Cordero, son+in+la& o) theAlteras, signed a
docu*ent in the Aisa.an dialect. ,either o) the vendees+a+retro, 3io Altera nor Casi*ira 3asagui, &as
a signator. to the deed.
D. 3etitioner *aintains that 1ecause 3io Altera &as ver. ill at the ti*e, 3aciente Cordero executed the
deed o) resale )or and on 1ehal) o) his )ather+in+la&. 3etitioner )urther states that she redee*ed the
propert. &ith her o&n *one. as her co+heirs &ere 1ere)to) )unds )or the purpose
6. A)ter&hich, 3io Altera sold the disputed lot to the spouses 'a*on Conde and Catalina #. Conde
(not related to petitioner.
>. Contending that she had validl. repurchased the lot in 7uestion in 1/:D, %o*inga Conde )iled, a
Co*plaint against the respondents )or 7uieting o) title to real propert. and declaration o) o&nership.
ISSE2" 9-, there &as an i*plied agenc. &hen Cordero signed the repurchase docu*ent
@28%" H2S. I) petitioner had done nothing to )or*aliBe her repurchase, 1. the sa*e to6en, neither
have the vendees+a+retro done an.thing to clear their title o) the encu*1rance therein regarding
petitionerMs right to repurchase. ,o ne& agree*ent &as entered into 1. the parties as stipulated in the
deed o) pacto de retro , i) the vendors a retro )ailed to exercise their right o) rede*ption a)ter ten
.ears. I), petitioner exerted no e))ort to procure the signature o) 3io Altera a)ter he had recovered )ro*
his illness,
neither did the Alteras repudiate the deed that their son+in+la& had signed.

#hus, an i*plied agenc. *ust 1e held to have 1een created )ro* their silence or lac6 o) action, or
their )ailure to repudiate the agenc.. 3ossession o) the lot in dispute having 1een adversel. and
uninterruptedl. &ith petitioner )ro*1/:D &hen the docu*ent o) repurchase &as executed, to 1/6/,
&hen she instituted this action,or )or 2: .ears, the
Alteras *ust 1e dee*ed to have incurred in laches.
10. C-M3A,IA MA'I#IMA, vs.C-S2 C. 8IMS-,,
G.'. ,o. 8+2>14: !e1ruar. 20, 1/06

!acts"
Co*pania )iled a co*plaint against 8i*son )or collection o) the su* o) ::, >01.D:, theunpaid
accounts )or passage Q )reight on ship*ent o) hogs, cattle, cara1aos a1road &ith Co*pania<s vessel.
8i*son even denied the lia1ilit. sa.ing that he has not allo&ed such transaction and that he is not the
shipper. #he clai* involved 1. Co*pania a*ounted to D:D,4/:.2:, and these clai*s &ere 1ased )ro*
the 1ills signed 1. one person na*ed $3err.( and &ith 8i*son s the shipper and consignee.
Issue" 9hether or not the 1ills o) lading signed 1. $perr.( 1e accepted.
@eld"
Hes, A shipper *a. 1e held lia1le )or )reightage on 1ills o) lading signed 1. another person &here
the shipper appears as shipper or consignee, 1ills o) lading &here persons other than 8i*son appear as
shipper, and 1ills o) lading not signed 1. the shipper &here the testi*onial evidence sho&s that the
goods shipped actuall. 1elong to hi* as the shipper. As regards the controverted 1ills o) lading signed
1. O3err.O &ith 8i*son as shipper or consignee, a &itness testi)ied that the signatures therein are
those o) Cipriano Magti1a. aliasO3err.O &ho too6 deliver. o) the cargoes stated therein a)ter signing
the deliver. receipts. @e&as 6no&n to 1e the regular representative o) 8i*son.9ith respect to the
unsigned 1ills o) lading, deliver. receipts &ere issued upon deliver. o) the ship*ents. 9itnesses
testi)ied that the ordinar. procedure at Co*paniaMs ter*inal o))ice &as to re7uire the surrender o) the
original 1ill o) lading ,1ut &hen the 1ill o) lading cannot 1e surrendered 1ecause it had not arrived or
received 1. the consignee or assignee,the deliver. o) the cargo &as authoriBed Gust the sa*e, and the
deliver. receipt &as prepared 1ased on the shipMs cargo *ani)ests or shipMs cop. o) the 1ill o) lading.
#his acco**odation &as speciall. given 8i*son, 1ecause de)endant &as a regular shipper and ship
chandler o) plainti)),and &as a co*padre o) Ca1ling.
11. ,aguiat vs CA and RueaPo
G' ,o. 1104>D, 04 -cto1er 2004
:12 SC'A D/1
!AC#S
RueaPo applied &ith ,aguiat a loan )or 3200,000, &hich the latter granted. ,aguiat indorsed to
RueaPo Associated 1an6 Chec6 ,o. 0/0//0 )or the a*ount o) 3/D,000 and issued also her o&n
!il*an1an6 Chec6 to the order o) RueaPo )or the a*ount o) 3/D,000. #he proceeds o) these chec6s
&ere to constitute the loan granted 1. ,aguiat to RueaPo. #o secure the loan, RueaPo executed a %eed
o) 'eal 2state Mortgage in )avor o) ,aguiat, and surrendered the o&ner<s duplicates o) titles o) the
*ortgaged properties. #he deed &as notariBed and RueaPo issued to ,aguiat a pro*issor. note )or the
a*ount o) 3200,000. RueaPo also issued a post+dated chec6 a*ounting to 3200,000 pa.a1le to the
order o) ,aguait. #he chec6 &as dishonoured )or insu))icienc. o) )unds. %e*and &as sent to RueaPo.
Shortl., RueaPo, and one 'u1. 'eu1en)eldt *et &ith ,aguiat. RueaPo told ,aguiat that she did not
receive the loan proceeds, adding that the chec6s &ere retained 1. 'eu1en)eldt, &ho purportedl. &as
,aguiat<s agent.
,aguiat applied )or extraGudicial )oreclosure o) the *ortgage. '#C declared the %eed as null and void
and ordered ,aguiat to return to RueaPo the o&ner<s duplicates o) titles o) the *ortgaged lots.
ISSE2
9hether or not the issuance o) chec6 resulted in the per)ection o) the loan contract.
@28%
#he Court held in the negative. ,o evidence &as su1*itted 1. ,aguiat that the chec6s she issued
or endorsed &ere actuall. encashed or deposited. #he *ere issuance o) the chec6s did not result in the
per)ection o) the contract o) loan. #he Civil Code provides that the deliver. o) 1ills o) exchange and
*ercantile docu*ents such as chec6s shall produce the e))ect o) pa.*ent onl. &hen the. have 1een
cashed. It is onl. a)ter the chec6s have 1een produced the e))ect o) pa.*ent that the contract o) loan
*a. have 1een per)ected.
Article 1/4: o) the Civil Code provides" An accepted pro*ise to deliver so*ething 1. &a. o)
co**odatu* or si*ple loan is 1inding upon the parties, 1ut the co**odatu* or si*ple loan itsel
shall not 1e per)ected until the deliver. o) the o1Gect o) the contract. A loan contract is a real contract,
not consensual, and as such, is per)ected onl. upon the deliver. o) the o1Gects o) the contract.
12. 3hil. @ealth Care 3roviders, Inc. (MASICA'2 v. 2S#'A%A = CA'A Services
G'" 1>110D2 = Can. 20, 2000
!acts"
Maxicare is a do*estic corporation engaged in selling health insurance plans &hose Chair*an
%r. 'o1erto T. Macasaet, Chie) -perating -))icer Airgilio del Aalle, and Sales=Mar6eting Manager
Cosephine Ca1rera &ere i*pleaded as de)endants+appellants.
-n Septe*1er 1D, 1//0, Maxicare allegedl. engaged the services o) Car*ela 2strada &ho &as
doing 1usiness under the na*e o) CA'A @2A8#@ KS2'AIC2SL to pro*ote and sell the prepaid
group practice health care deliver. progra* called MASICA'2 3lan &ith the position o) Independent
Account 2xecutive. Maxicare )or*all. appointed 2strada as its $General Agent,( evidenced 1. a letter
+agree*ent dated !e1ruar. 16, 1//1.
Maxicare alleged that it )ollo&ed a $)ranchising s.ste*( in dealing &ith its agents &here1. an
agent had to )irst secure per*ission )ro* Maxicare to list a prospective co*pan. asclient. K2stradaL
alleged that it did appl. &ith Maxicare )or the M2'A8C- account and otheraccounts, and in )act, its
)ranchise to solicit corporate accounts, M2'A8C- account included,&as rene&ed on !e1ruar. 11,
1//1.3lainti))+appellee 2strada su1*itted proposals and *ade representations to the o))icers o)
M2'A8C- regarding the MASICA'2 3lan 1ut &hen M2'A8C- decided to su1scri1e to the
MASICA'2 3lan, KMaxicareL directl. negotiated &ith M2'A8C- regarding the ter*s and
conditions o) the agree*ent and le)t plainti))+appellee 2strada out o) the discussions on the ter*s and
conditions.-n March 2:, 1//2, plainti))+appellee 2strada, through counsel, de*anded )ro* Maxicare
that it 1e paid co**issions )or the M2'A8C- account and nine (/ other accounts.
In repl.,Maxicare, through counsel, denied K2strada<sL clai*s )or co**ission )or the M2'A8C-
and other accounts 1ecause Maxicare directl. negotiated &ith M2'A8C- and the other
accounts(,and that no agent &as given the go signal to intervene in the negotiations )or the ter*s and
conditions and the signing o) the service agree*ent &ith M2'A8C- and the other accounts so that i)
ever Maxicare &as inde1ted to 2strada, it &as onl. )or 31,DDD.00 and 3:4.l2 as co**issions on the
accounts o) -verseas !reighters Co. and Mr. 2nri7ue Acosta,A)ter trial, the '#C )ound Maxicare
lia1le )or 1reach o) contract and ordered it to pa. 2strada actual da*ages in the a*ount e7uivalent to
10; o) 320,16/,44D.00, representing her co**ission )or the total pre*iu*s paid 1. Meralco to
Maxicare )ro* the .ear 1//1 to 1//6, plus legal interest co*puted )ro* the )iling o) the co*plaint on
March 10, 1//4, and attorne.<s )ees in the a*ount o) 3100,000.00.-n appeal, the CA a))ir*ed in toto
the '#C<s decision.

Issues"
1. 9hether the Court o) Appeals co**itted serious error in a))ir*ing 2strada<s entitle*ent to
co**issions )or the execution o) the service agree*ent 1et&een Meralco and Maxicare.
2. Corollaril., &hether 2strada is entitled to co**issions )or the t&o (2consecutive rene&als o) the
service agree*ent e))ective on %ece*1er 1,1//2 and %ece*1er 1, 1//D.
@eld"
9ell+entrenched in Gurisprudence is the rule that )actual )indings o) the trial court,especiall. &hen
a))ir*ed 1. the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree o) respect and are considered
conclusive 1et&een the parties. Contrar. to Maxicare<s assertion, the trial and the appellate courts
care)ull. considered the )actual 1ac6drop o) the case as 1orne out 1. the records. 5oth courts &ere one
in the conclusion that Maxicare success)ull. landed the Meralco account )or the sale o) healthcare
plans onl. 1. virtue o) 2strada<s involve*ent and participation in the negotiations.At the ver. least,
2strada penetrated the Meralco *ar6et, initiall. closed to Maxicare, and laid the ground&or6 )or a
1usiness relationship. #he onl. reason 2strada &as not a1le to participate in the collection and
re*ittance o) pre*iu* dues to Maxicare &as 1ecause she &as prevented )ro* doing so 1. the acts o)
Maxicare, its o))icers, and e*plo.ees
14. Aeloso vs CA
Applica1le 3rovision" Art. 10>0
!acts"
3etitioner !rancisco Aeloso &as the sole o&ner o) a registered parcel o) land in #ondo, Manila,
&hich he ac7uired in 1/D>.
@is &i)e Ir*a, ar*ed &ith a general po&er o) attorne., sold said lot to the respondent spouses
2scario in 1/0>.
3etitioner )iled an action )or annul*ent o) the deed o) sale and reconve.ance o) propert.
U

9hether a general po&er o) attorne. *a. authoriBe an agent to sellreal propert..
@eld='atio"
U
Hes.
Although sale o) real propert. re7uires a special po&er o) attorne., i) ageneral po&er o) attorne.
expressl. grants the po&er to sell to theagent, there is no need to execute a separate special po&er
o)attorne..U

#he assailed po&er o) attorne. had the )ollo&ing provision" $#o 1u. or sell land, *ore
speci)icall. #C# ,o. :/140(

#hus, said po&er o) attorne. su))icientl. authoriBed the &i)e to sell the propert.. #here)ore, the sale is
valid
1:. -8AGE2' vs 3E'EGGA,A,
!AC#S"
Alleges that he &as the o&ner o) 60,000 share o) stoc6s (&orth 6006, e*plo.ed as 2A3
5usiness da. Corporation, 3resident o) 5usiness da. In)o S.ste* and Svces Q 5usiness da.
Mar6eting Corp. Active in the political opposition against Marcos together &ith resps 'aul 8ocsin and
2nri7ue Coa7uin. 8ocsin, Coa7uin, and @ector @oli)ePa had an un&ritten agree*ent that, in the event
that 2duardo &as arrested, the. &ould support the 2duardoVs )a*il. 1. the continued pa.*ent o) his
salar.. 2xecuted a Special 3o&er o) Attorne. on D=26=>/appointing 8ocsin, Coa7uin and @o)ilePa )or
the purpose o) selling or trans)erring petitionerVs shares o) stoc6 &ith 5usiness da.. %uring trial,
2duardo testi)ied that he agreed to execute the S3A in order to cancel his shares o) stoc6, even 1e)ore
the. are sold, )or the purpose o) concealing that he &as a stoc6holder o) 5usiness da., in the event o) a
*ilitar. crac6do&n against the opposition. 3arties ac6no&ledged the S3A 1e)ore respondent 2*ilio
3urugganan,Cr., &ho &as then the Corporate Secretar. o) 5usiness da., and at the sa*e ti*e, a notar.
pu1lic )or RueBon Cit.. 5. the ti*e he &as released )ro* prison 6 .ears later, he &as no longer a
share holder in the said 1an6. According to the respondents, the. &ere Gust doing &hat &as accorded
in the S3A, given that the price o) theirs plu**eted 1elo& *ar6et value 1ecause o) the stig*a 1rought
a1out 1. -laguer 1eing a ver. pro*inent oppositionist.
ISSE2"
9hether a1sence as *entioned in S3A should 1e understood as that o) ,CC 401.
'E8I,G"
,-. I) it &ere, then the ver. existence o) that S3A &ould 1e rendered nugator..-laguer has to 1e a
*inor or insane )or that S3A to have )unction. An S3A has to 1e construed strictl. 1ut its provision has
to 1e construed as to its existence, i.e. understood in a &a. that &ill give *ore po&er= )unction to that
S3A. Since the said S3A executed 1. -laguer gave po&ers to the respondents to actuall. dispose o)
his share, he cannot there)ore assail such no&. And even i) the said contract is assaila1le, it &as
alread. rati)ied 1. the reception o) the a*ount 600,000 1. -laguerVs &i)e and in+la&s )ro* 1/00+
1/02.
1:. -8AGE2' AS 3E'EGGA,A, C'
!acts"
A petition )or revie& on the decision o) CA a))ir*ing the decision o) '#C dis*issing
the-laguer<s suit.3 &as the o&ner o) shares o) stoc6s o) 1usinessda. Corp. @e &as active in the
political opposition against Marcos dictatorship. Anticipating the possi1ilit. o) his arrest and detention
1. te* arcos *ilitar., he executed a S3S appointing his attorne.s+in+)act 8ocsin, Coa7uin and ho)ilena
)or the purpose o) selling or trans)erring his shares o) stoc6s &ith 5usonessda.. %uring his trial under
the S3A, in order to cancel his shares o) stoc6s even 1e)ore the. are sold )or the purpose o) concealing
that he &as a stoc6holder. #he parties ac6no&ledge the S3A 1e)ore 2*ilio 3urugganan, the corporate
Sec and the notar. pu1lic.@e &as arrested )or arson and locsin ordered purugganan to cancel the
shares in thr 1oo6s o) the corp and to trans)er the* to 8ocsin<s na*e.9hen he &as released )ro*
detention, he discovered that he &as no longer registered as stoc6holder. @e de*anded that
respondents restore to hi* )ull o&nership , 1ut the. re)used to do so. @e )iled a co*plaint 1e)ore '#C
against purugganana and locsin to declare as illegal the sale o) the shares o) stoc6.@e alleged that
respondent exceeded his authorit. under the S3A. S3A onl. applied in a1sence and incapacit..'#C
dis*issed and )ound the sale o) shares 1=& hi* and respondent locsin &as valid.
Issue" 9-, the CA erred in ruling that there &as per)ected sale.
'uling"
3etitioner sought to i*pose a strict construction o) the S3A 1. li*iting the de)inition o) the &ord
A5S2,C2 to a condition &herein a person disappears )ro* his do*icile, his &herea1outs 1eing
un6no&n &ithout leaving an agent to ad*inister his propert.. Incapacit. )or olaguer &ould 1e li*ited
to *ean $*inorit., insanit., i*1ecilit., the state o) 1eing dea)+*ute, prodigalit. and civil
interdiction.@e clai*s that his arrest and su1se7uent detention are not a*ong the instances covered1.
the ter*s a1sence and incapacit. as provided in the S3A in )avor o) locsin.It is a general rule the S3A
*ust 1e strictl. construed, ho&ever, the rule is not a1solute and should not 1e applied to the extent o)
destro.ing the ver. purpose o) the po&er.@e alread. authoriBed agents to do speci)ic acts o)
ad*inistration and no longer necessitated the appoint*ent o) one 1. the court
1D. 'IA2'- vs CA
G.'. ,o. 1:12>4, Ma. 1>, 200D, :D0 SC'A >1:
!AC#S"
5 &as an illegiti*ate child o) A. Epon the latter<s death, S, 5<s *other and his guardian ad lite*
)iled )or the co*pulsor. recognition as the illegiti*ate child and )or the ad*inistration and partition o)
A<s estate.
M, a legiti*ate daughter o) A, in 1ehal) o) hersel) and her t&o 1rothers &ho &ere o) unsound
*ind, contested the recognition o) )iliation o) 5 and the appoint*ent o) S as ad*inistrator.
9hile the case )or the settle*ent o) the estate and the appoint*ent o) ad*inistrator &as pending
in court, 5 and M executed a co*pro*ise agree*ent &herein the latter recogniBed the )or*er as the
illegiti*ate son o) her decease )ather, the consideration )or &hich &as the a*ount o) php 6,000,000 to
1e ta6en )ro* the estate, the &aiver o) other clai*s, and the &aiver 1. the si1lings o) their
counterclai*s against 5.
#he 1rothers, represented 1. their uncle @, assailed the propriet. o) the appoint*ent o) their
sister as ad*inistrator and 7uestioned the validit. o) the Gudg*ent as their sister &as authoriBed to
enter into the co*pro*ise agree*ent on their 1ehal).
CAS2 ISSE2"
W 9hether or not a co*pro*ise agree*ent 1et&een an illegiti*ate and legiti*ate child regarding the
estate o) their deceased )ather is valid
'uling"
Article 204D o) the ,e& Civil Code" ,o co*pro*ise upon the civil status o) persons shall 1e valid. As
such, paternit. and )iliation, or the lac6 o) the sa*e, is a relationship that *ust 1e Gudiciall.
esta1lished, and it is )or the court to deter*ine its existence or a1sence. It cannot 1e le)t to the &ill or
agree*ent o) the parties.
A co*pro*ise is a contract &here1. parties, *a6ing reciprocal concerns, avoid litigation or put an
end to one alread. co**ence. li6e an. other contract, the ter*s and conditions o) a co*pro*ise
agree*ent *ust not 1e contrar. to la&, *orals, good custo*s, pu1lic polic., and pu1lic
order.-ther&ise, the sa*e shall 1e null and void, and vests no rights and holds no o1ligation to an.
part.. It produces no legal e))ect at all.