1. Eurotech vs Cuison
Rallos vs Felix Go Chan
 Art. 1897. The agent who acts as such is not personally
liable to the party with whom he contracts, unless he
expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits of his
authority without giving such party sufficient notice of
his powers. (1725)
 In contract of agency, one binds himself to render some
service or to do something in representation or on behalf
of another with the latter’s consent.
 The basis of agency is representation, that is, the agent
acts for and on behalf of the principal on matters within
the scope of his authority and said acts have the same
legal effects as if they were personally executed by the
Principal.
 Elements of Contract of Agency:
(1) Consent, express or implied, of the parties to establish
the relationship
(2) Object, which is the execution of a juridical act in
relation to third party
(3) The agent acts as a representative and not for himself
(4) The agent acts within the scope of his authority
 2 instances where the agent becomes PERSONALLY
LIABLE to third person:
(1) He expressly binds himself to the obligation
(2) When he exceeds his authority
 Edwin’s participation in the Deed of Assignment was
reasonably necessary or was required in order for him to
protect the business
2.
 Sale was void.
(1) No one may contract in the name of another without
being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a
right to represent him (Art. 1317 of the Civil Code).
(2) Simon’s authority as agent was extinguished upon
Concolacion’s death
 Extinguishment
o Generally: among others 1, By the death, civil
interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or
of the agent
- death of the principal effects instantaneous
and absolute revocation of the authority of the
agent
o Exceptions:
 (Art. 1930) if it has been constituted in the
common interest of the latter and of the
agent, or in the interest of a third person who
has accepted the stipulation in his favor.
 (Art. 1931) agent acted without knowledge
of the pricipal’s death and that the third
person was in good faith (both these reqs
should be present)
 The sale did not fall under the exceptions to the general
rule that death ipso jure extinguishes the authority of the
agent
o Art. 1930 inapplicable: SPA in favor of Simon
Rallos was not coupled with interest
o Art. 1931 inapplicable:
1 See Art. 1919
  Simon Rallos knew (as can be inferred his principal or cestui que trust. Whatever a trustee does for the
from his pleadings) of principal advantage of the trust estate inures to the benefit of the cestui
Concepcion’s death que trust.
 For Art 1931 to apply, both requirements
must be present
 Yes, agent’s knowledge of principal’s 4
death is material.
 Respondent asserts that: there is no provision in the
Code which provides that whatever is done by an agent
having knowledge of the death of his principal is void
even with respect to third

3. Severino vs Severino G.R. No. 18058 January 16, 1923

Facts:
Defendant Guillermo Severino, after the death of his brother
(Melecio Severino), was the latter’s administrator and as such,
continued to occupy the land owned by Melecio. Eventually,
cadastral proceedings were instituted for the registration of the
land titles. Guillermo claimed such land and since no opposition
was presented, the court decreed the title in his favor.
Melecio’s daughter and sole heir, plaintiff Fabiola Severino,
compelled Guillermo to convey to her the land. It bears noting
that Fabiola was a minor during the time of the cadastral
proceedings.

Issue:
Whether or not Guillermo can be compelled to convey the land to
Fabiola, even if there is already a title in Guillermo’s name.

Held:
Yes. The relations of an agent to his principal are fiduciary.
Guillermo’s position as agent is analogous to that of a trustee and
he cannot consistently, with the principles of good faith, be
allowed to create in himself an interest in opposition to that of