I.

Introduction
A. How is agency defined?
Art 1868, CC. By the contract of agency
a person binds himself
to render some service or to do something
in representation or on behalf of another,
with the consent or authority of the latter.

1. Consent
Art 1868. By the contract of agency,
a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation
or on behalf of another,
with the consent or authority of the latter.

Art 1869. Agency may be

express
or implied from the acts of the principal,
from his silence or lack of action,
or his failure to repudiate the agency
knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority.
Agency may be oral,
unless the law requires a special form.

Art 1870. Acceptance by the agent

may also be express
or implied from his acts which carry out the agency
or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances

Art 1871. Between persons who are present,

the acceptance of the agency may also be implied
if the principal delivers his power of attorney to the agent
and the latter receives it without any objection.

Art 1872. Between persons who are absent,

the acceptance of the agency
cannot be implied from the silence of the agent,
except: (1) when the principal transmits his power of attorney to the agent, who
receives it without any objection
(2) when the principal entrusts to him by letter or telegram a power of
attorney with respect to the business in which he is habitually engaged as an agent,
and he did not reply to the letter or telegram
Art 1898. If the agent contracts in the name of the principal,
exceeding the scope of his authority,
and the principal does not ratify the contract,
it shall be void
if the party with whom the agent contracted is aware of the limits of the powers
granted by the principal.
In this case, however, the agent is liable
if he undertook to secure the principal’s ratification

Art 1901. A third person

cannot set up the fact that the agent has exceeded his powers,
if the principal has ratified,
or has signified his willingness to ratify the agent’s acts.

Art 1910. The principal must comply with all obligations which the agent may have
contracted within the scope of his authority.
As for any obligation wherein the agent has exceeded his power,
the principal is not bound
except when he ratifies it expressly
or tacitly

Art 1317. 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.
A contract entered into in the name of another
by one who has acted beyond his powers
shall be unenforceable,
unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly,
by the person on whose behalf it has been executed,
before it is revoked by the other contracting party

Art 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable,

unless they are ratified
(1) those entered into the name of another person
by one who has been given no authority or legal representation
or who has acted beyond his powers.

a. Express ratification

b. Implied ratification
 2. Object

3. Consideration
Art 1875. Agency is presumed
to be for a compensation,
unless there is proof to the contrary.

B. Who are the parties to the contract of agency?

C. Must the parties be capacitated?

Agency, 1-35

Agency, definitions

- A legal relationship; connection in law between one person or entity and another
- Mechem: a legal relation,
o founded upon the express or implied contract of the parties—
o or created by law—
o by virtue of which one party—called the agent—is employed and authorized to
represent and act
o for the other, called the principal—
o in business dealings.
- Restatement: a fiduciary relationship that arises
o when one person (principal) manifests assent
o to another (agent)
o that the agent shall act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control,
o and the agent manifests assent or otherwise consents to so act
- Am Jur: a fiduciary relationship in which
o a party confides
o to another
o the management of some business
o to be transacted in the former’s name or on his or her account,
o and by which such other assumes to do the business and render an account of it
- Rallos v Felix Go Chan: relationship whereby one party, called the principal (mandante),
o authorizes another, called the agent (mandatario),
o to act for and in his behalf
o in transactions with third persons
- Severino v Severino: fiduciary
- A contract || 1868; consent crucial. But legal relation may be created by operation of law

Agency, purpose

- Accomplishment of more tasks

- Multiple and simultaneous areas of activity
- Improved performance
 - Multiple business

Agency, elements

- Civil Code
o A person
 must bind himself to render some service or to do something
 in representation or on behalf of another person
o with the consent of the other person
- Court (Rallos)
o Consent, express or implied, of the parties to establish the relationship
 Must be clearly proved by evidence
 Mere closeness of relationship does not mean that agency exists
 Principal: naturally inferable intention to appoint from words, actions
 Agent: intention to accept appointment and act upon it
 Contract largely depends on intention of parties
o Object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person
 Subject matter of contract of agency: representation
 Specific juridical relation need not be specified upon est of rel
 Ee could also be an agent if ee has power to represent er and enter into binding
transactions
o Agent acts as a representative and not for himself
 A consequence of the contract; not necessary that agent actually represents the
principal
 Agent acting for self under circumstances of conflict of interest does not
invalidate original contract; only a breach
 This an obligation, not really an essential element; contract only needs consent
o Agent acts within the scope of his authority
 Also a consequence; not condition for existence of agency
 1869: implied agency exists even when agent acts outside authority
 Provided principal silent, does not repudiate acts
 Nature of act only affects validity of act, not that of agency
- Casis || CC
o Consent on the part of the principal and agent to establish agency relationship
o Purpose of contract: representation

Agency, effects

- Integration of personality of the principal in that of the agent

o Merged personality
- Extension of the personality of the principal through the agent
o Reproduced personality
- Actual absence converted into legal presence
- Agent not real party-in-interest
- Agent liable to principal, not to third party; third party cannot enforce rts against agent
o Rendering of service does not make agent party to contract
 o Agent may bring action against principal if made assignee in contract
o Agency in civil cases not applicable in criminal cases
 Agency not an excuse to exempt agent from criminal responsibility
- Notice to agent is notice to principal
o But notice to principal generally not notice to agent
o Protect those in good faith; not shield for unfair dealing
o Exception: where conduct and dealings of agent raise clear presumption that he will not
communicate to the principal the facts in the controversy
- Bad faith of agent is bad faith of principal || Caram v Laureta

Ramon Rallos v Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp, CA (1978, Munoz Palma, review on certiorari)

- Concepcion, Gerunda Rallos – principal; owners of Lot 5983

- Ramon – administrator of Concepcion
- Simeon – brother of C & G; given spa by sisters to sell lot, 1951
o Died pending case
- Concepcion died, Mar 1955
- Simeon sold lot to Felix Go Chan, Sep 55
- CFI, Ceby: Ramon instituted action: sale be declared unenforceable, share be reconveyed to
estate; TCT cancelled
o Deed of sale null and void || Concepcion’s share
- CA: sale sustained
o MR by Ramon denied
- SC:
o On agency
 Agency: one party, called the principal (mandante), authorizes another, called
the agent (mandatario), to act for and in his behalf in transactions w/ 3rd person
 Elements:
 Consent, express or implied, of the parties to establish the relationship
 Object is the execution of a juridical ac in relation to a third person
 The agent acts as a representative and not for himself
 The agent acts within the scope of his authority
 Personal, representative, derivative in nature
 Authority emanates from powers granted by principal
 Agent’s act that of principal if done within scope of authority
 Qui facit per alium facit per se
o He who acts through another acts himself
 Can be extinguished (Art 1919) through death
 By reason of very nature of relationship
 Due to integration of personalities. Representation cannot continue
once death of either established (Laurent: happens ipso jure)
 EXCEPTIONS:
o 1930: if agency constituted in the common interest of p & a, or
in interest of third person who has accepted stip pour atrui
o 1931: done w/o knowledge of death of principal or any cause
 o Was agency extinguished?
 Case not within exceptions
 1930 not applicable; spa not coupled with interest
 1931 not applicable. Elements:
o Agent acted without knowledge of death
o Third person who contracted with agent acted in good faith
(Felix Go argument)
 Here, Simeon (agent) knew of death of Concepcion
 Exception must be construed strictly
 Good faith not enough
 Blondeau decision cited not on all fours with instant case
 US case not enough (McKenzie)
 PH law clear: 1931 requires absence of knowledge
 Revocation by act of principal v revocation by operation of law
 In this case, revocation by operation of law
 Ipso jure; no need to communicate revocation
o By legal fiction, the agent’s exercise of authority is regarded as
an execution of the principal’s continuing will
o With death, principal’s will ceases; source of auth extinguished
 Heirs of principal without duty to inform agent of death of p
o AFFIRMED

Orient Air Services and Hotel Rep v CA, Am Airlines, Inc

Am Airlines v CA, Orient Air (1991, Padilla)

- General Sales Agency Agreement

o Am Air authorized
o Orient Air to act as exclusive general sales agent
 within Ph
 for sale of air passenger transpo
o Am to pay Orient Sales agency commission, overriding commission (3% for all sales of
transportation over Am’s services by Oriental or its sub-agents)
o To remit ticket stock, exchange orders less commission in US, in $
- Am terminated contract. Orient failed to remit. Am had to collect proceeds itself
- CFI, Mla: Am v Orient: preliminary attachment, garnishment, mandatory inj, restraining order
due to failure to remit, settle refunds
o Orient: Am owed it overriding commissions
o Termination of contract illegal, improper
o Reinstate orient as GSA, pay overriding commission balance
- IAC: affirmed; modified monetary awards
- SC:
o Am: Orient can claim entitlement to overriding commission based only on ticketed sales
 Sale must be made by Orient and done with use of Am’s ticket stocks
o Orient: 3% covers total revenue of Am air due to being exclusive agent (no sub-agents)
 All sales of transpo over Am’s services are by Orient
 o 3% refers to total flown revenue
 Contract provision read with others leads to this conclusion
 Precondition in first type of commission (sales, made on Am Air ticket stock)
does not attach to second type (overriding)
 Otherwise, absurd that first and second commissions same
 + contract drafted by Am and must be read against it
o Termination of contract basis not proper
 Orient entitled to commissions
 Orient entitled to withhold commission || agreement
o Reinstatement not proper
 Decision in effect compels Am to extend its personality to Orient
 Violative of principles and essence of agency: “…,with the consent or authority
of the latter”
 In agency, personality of principal extended through the facility of the agent
 Agent becomes the principal, auth to perform all acts which principal
would have him do
 Can only be effected with consent of principal which must not be
compelled
 Agreement: either may terminate without cause by giving notice (30 d)
o AFFIRMED. Set aside as to reinstatement as agent

William Uy, Rodel Roxas v CA, Hon Balao, NHA (1999, Kapunan, review on certiorari)

- Uy and Roxas agents

o Auth to sell 8 parcels (31.82 ha)
o To NHA
- NHA Resolution: approved acquisition for 23.9M
- Only five of eight paid for
o due to report from DENR: remaining area an active landslide area. Unsuitable
- RTC: Uy, Roxas: damages v NHA, Gen Mgr Balao
o Justified in claim for damages
- CA: Reversed.
o Sufficient basis in cancellation; damages unwarranted
o Mere attys-in-fact and not real parties-in-interest
- SC:
o Uy, Roxas: action in own name as agents directly damaged by termination of contract;
damages to indemnify for losses incurred—unearned income and advances
o Uy and Roxas cannot enforce claimed right under contract
 Rules, Sec 2, Rule 3: every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name
of the real party-in-interest
 Real PII – party who stands to be benefited or injured by judgment
o Has right sought to be enforced
 Interest – material interest; int In issue and to be affected by decree v
incidental interest
  1311: contracts take effect only bet parties, assigns, heirs; pour atrui…
 Contract may be violated only by parties thereto
 Here, not parties to contract of sale bet principal and NHA
o Mere agents of owners
o Only render service or do something in representation or on
behalf of principals
o Rendering of service did not make them parties to the contracts
of sale executed in behalf of principal
 Not even heirs, alleged or proved
 Not assignees to rights under contract
o Agent may bring action founded on contract for principal as
assignee || Restatement, McMicking
 Agent a transferee: one who has made a contract of
another may become an assignee and bring suit
 Assignee if a settled with p that a to collect claim v
obligor by reimbursing self for advances, commissions
 Power to sue as assignee not affected by settlement of
p and obligor
 Has irrevocable power to sue in principal’s name and in
his own
o No evidence to prove this
 Not beneficiaries of stipulation pour atrui
 Agent does not have interest in contract to entitle him to maintain action at law
upon it in his own name merely because he is entitled to a portion of proceeds…
|| Restatement
 At most, owner of property or one who promised commission liable
 Therefore, not real parties-in-interest
o Rescission not rescission || 1191. Cancelled contract due to negation of cause, an
essential element of contracts (motive predetermines cause in this case, therefore,
motive may be regarded as cause—housing project suitability)
 NHA justified in cancelling contract
o DENIED.

BH Macke et al, piff-ee v Jose Camps, def-ant (1907, Carson)

- Macke and Chandler, partners under Macke, Chandler & Co

o Sold to [Camps] various bills of goods for 350
o After inquiring into credit of Camps and Flores’ authority as agent
- Flores represented self as agent of Camps
o Shipped goods to Camps at Washington Café
o Acknowledged receipt
o Paid 170
- Remaining balance to be paid by principal, Camps in province
- Macke demanded payment but Camps failed and refused to pay; denied receipt of goods
 - NB: Galmes former owner of Washington, subrented building to Camps; contract sgd by Camps
and Flores as witness. Camps as sublessee, Flores as managing agent
- SC:
o Flores agent of Camps
 Contract with Galmes:
 Camps owner of business, bar
 Flores managing agent (el manejante encargado)
 Purchases made when Flores in charge of business, performing duties as agent
 One who clothes another with apparent authority as his agent and holds him
out to the public as such
cannot be permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his agent
to the prejudice of innocent third parties dealing with such person in good faith
and in the honest belief that he is what he appears to be
 Conclusive bc
o Party by own declaration, act, omission intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and
to act upon such belie, cannot in litigation be permitted to
falsify it (estoppel)
 Flores as managing agent had authority to buy reasonable quantities of supplies
from time to time as necessary to carry on business
 Esp since Camps left him in charge during prolonged periods of absence
 Flores acting within scope of authority
 Admissions as to receipts binding on principal
o AFFIRMED

Prudential Bank v CA, Aurora Cruz (1993, Cruz, review)

- Cruz and sister, co-deposited 200,00

- In Prudential Bank, QC
o Placement for 63 days at 13.75% annual int
- 196k withdrawsn from account and applied to investment. 3.8k diff as prepaid int
o Evidenced by confirmation of sale with debit memo
o Issued by Susan Quimbo, ee of bank to whom Cruz was referred; in charge of such
- Cruz renewed investment. Same process but was asked to sign withdrawal slip, August
- Cruz returned to withdraw, but appeared that amount withdrawn by her in August
o No copy of debit memo and confirmation of sale
- Cruz eventually demanded return of amount plus int
- Bank VP: defer court action; will try to settle amicably. There appears to be an anomaly
- Cruz rewrote; was denied again
- RTC: Cruz v Bank: breach of contract
o Bank: denied liability. Cruz withdrew investment; third-party complaint v Quimbo
o Bank liable
- CA: affirmed in toto.
 - SC:
o Bank: not liable for quasi-delict when sued for breach of contract. Withdrawal slip as
evidence of withdrawal by Cruz not denied being signed by Cruz
o CA only cited CC provision on quasi-delict, but ultimately held Bank liable || contract
o Factual findings sustained
 Cruz had no reason to question authority of documents issued by office and ees
o Bank liable as principal to its agent
 Principal: Bank
 Agent: Officers
 || Qui per alium facit per seipsum facer videtur—he who does a thing by an
agent does it himself
 || 1910 (principal to comply with obligations contracted by agent), 1911 (still
solidarily liable with agent even if agent acted outside authority but was allowed
to act as though he held full powers)
 || McIntosh v Dakota Trust: a bank holding out its officers and agent as worthy
of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds they may thus be
enabled to perpetrate in the apparent scope of their employment; nor will it be
permitted to shirk its responsibility for such frauds, even though no benefit may
accrue to the bank therefrom
 Bank liable to innocent third persons where representation is made in
the course of its business by an agent acting within the scope of his auth
even though agent secretly abusing authority and attempting to
perpetrate fraud upon principal or some other person
 Necessary principles bc of fiduciary nature of relationship
 Bank did not present Quimbo; no word on her. Bank absolving not only itself
but also Quimbo
 Bank in bad faith in denying claim when it irregularity obvious due to personnel
o AFFIRMED

Eduardo Litonjua, Antonio Litonjua v Eternit Corp, Etroutremer, SA, Far East Bank (2006, Callejo, RoC)

- EC manufacturer of roofing mat’l

o 90% Belgian
o Owns 8 parcels of land, 47 ha for manufacturing ops, Mandaluyong
 Under Far East’s name, trustee
o Decided to sell properties due to political unrest
- Adams, EC Director, was instructed to sell; engaged
- Marquez, broker/realtor
- Glanville, General Mgr and Pres of EC, showed lots to Marquez
- Litonjua brothers offered 20M
- Marquez informed Glanville of Litonjua offer
- Delsaux, Regional Director for Asia, counter-offered $1M and 2.5Php for other costs
- Delsaux telegram furnished to Litonjua by Marquez
- Litonjuas accepted. Deposited 1M with Secuirty Bank + Escrow Agreement to
- Glanville to Delsaux: met with buyer. Impression was he is prepared to press for satisfactory
conclusion of sale
- Aquino became Pres
- Glanville to Marquez: no more sale
- Delsaux wrote to Marquez: no more sale
- RTC, Pasig: Litonjuas: specific performance, damages v EC, Far East, ESAC
o Dismissed
o No written authority of Marquez; sale void
o No ratification (retroactive)
- CA: Litonjua: Marquez not agent; only broker. Agency by estoppel when corp clothed Marquez
with authority to negotiate; perfected contract of sale
o EC: no authority: Marquez, Deslaux, Glanville. Substantial assets; stockholder authority
needed
o Affirmed
- SC:
o Litonjuas: written auth not needed for broker with limited and special character of
authority. Job was look for buyer and bring them together;
 not [authorized] to sell or make binding contract to EC;
 what matters: Marquez able to communicate offer, conter-offer, acceptance—
 perfected contract of sale
 Glanville and Deslaux had necessary authority to sell
 Good faith
o Issues raised factual
 Authority of Delsaux, Marquez, Glanville
 In absence of express written terms creating relationship of agency, existence of
agency a fact question
 Questions of estoppel, acting within authority questions of fact
 Instant case not among exceptions to Rule 45 (question of law only…)
 Litonjuas had duty to prove but were not able to (below among others)
 When specific performance is sought of a contract made with an agent,
the agency must be established by clear, certain and specific proof
o Corporation a juridical person that can act only through its
directors or when authorized, officers, agents
o General principles of agency govern relation bet corp and
officers, agent, subj to by-laws, articles, laws
o Sale of property of corp needs express authority of board
o Physical acts of offer, acceptance, etc performed by officers,
agents duly authorized
 Absent such, declarations of individual director relating
to affairs of corp but not in course of or connected with
perf of auth duties of director, NOT BINDING
 Sale without written authority null and void
o Agency || 1868 – no evidence
 Consent of both p and a necessary
  Principal must intend that agent shall act for him; agent
must intend to accept auth and act on it
 Intention must find expression either in words
or conduct between them
 May be express or implied from act of principal,
silence, inaction, failure to repudiate agency
 Acceptance by agent may be express or implied
from acts which carry out agency, or silence,
inaction
 May be oral unless law requires specific form
 To create or convey real rights over immovable,
spa necessary
o Sale of a piece of land or any portion is
through an agent, auth of latter shall be
in writing, otherwise, sale void || 1874
o Delsaux reply after delay: from
Swiss/Belgian component only; not BoD
o Counter-offer accepted <ESAC, not EC.
EC not bound
 D, G, A acted for ESAC, not EC
 Agent-principal rel: personality of p extended thru
facility of agent; agent, by legal fiction, becomes
principal, auth to perform all acts which p would have
him do
 Can only be effected with consent of p, which
must not be compelled by law, court
 A person dealing with agent not authorized blindly to
trust agent
 Must exercise reasonable diligence to check on
agent’s scope of auth
 G: persons dealing with an assumed agent are
bound at their peril
o Marquez acted as agent, not only broker
 Confirmed for and on behalf of Litonjuas their
acceptance in letter to Glanville
 But had no authority to sell
 Broker only negotiates—find purchaser willing to buy
upon terms fixed by seller
 No authority to bind principal by signing contract of sale
o No agency by estoppel. No proof
o DENIED
Sps Viloria v Continental Airlines, Inc (2012, Reyes, review on certiorari)

- Sps (Fernando only) bought 2 roundtrip Continental Airlines tickets for self and wife
o San Diego to New Jersey (Aug 13-Aug 21)
o $400 each
o From Holiday Travel, travel agency
o Through Margaret Mager
o Because no more Amtrak seats (train)
o Requested to reschedule to Aug 6 but fuly booked
o Was offered alternative roundtrip via Frontier Air @ 526 each and night travel
 Fernando asked for a refund instead
 Denied. Non-refundable
 Continental can offer re-issuance of new tickets within one year from date subj
tickets issued
o Went to Greyhound Station and saw Amtrak station
 Found out seats were available; bought 2 tickets
- In PH, demanded refund from Continental and alleged Mager deluded them into buying
Continental
- Denied. Was told by Continental Micronesia tickets may only be re-issued or payment for
purchase of another Continental ticket + re-issuance fee (letter, March)
- Fernando wento to Ayala office. Tickets for one round trip ticket to LA, $1867.4 v others’ 800
o Lourdes’ ticket non-transferable
o Will still have to pay for difference between old and new tickets
- Fernando demanded refund again + overcharged LA ticket + non-transferability of wife’s ticket against
March letter (Micronesia)
- RTC: Fernando v Continental: refund + moral, exem, fees (1M, 500k, 250k)
o Continental: tickets non-refundable, no right to ask for refund; non-transferable; Mager not CAI
ee; CAI, ees, agents not in bad faith so no damages
o Entitled to refund. Mager misrepresented to obtain consent.
o 1868, 1869: Mager Continental’s agent, therefore bound by bad faith
 Travel agency binds self to render service
 Travel agencies represent selves as agents in the reservation and booking of tours and
issuance of tickets for a fee
o CAI in bad faith for reneging on undertaking to reissue tickets
- CA: reversed. No proof of principal-agent relationship be Continental and Holiday Travel.
o Relationship not agency but of sale—Holiday buys from Continental and sells same at premium
to clients. Non-refundable printed. No bad faith; price fixing mgt prerog
- SC:
o Sps: same allegations
o CAI: Holiday independent contractor. Not in bad faith, etc
o Holiday and Continental agent and principal respectively
 || Rallos v Felix Go Chan: agency definition
 All elements exist
 Undisputed that Continental concluded agreement with Holiday
(Holiday to enter into ctracts of carriage with third persons on CAI’s
behalf)
  Undisputed that Holiday merely acted in representative capacity and
CAI, not Holiday bound by contracts of carriage entered into by Holiday
on its behalf
 Continental did not allege that Holiday exceeded authority that was
granted to it
o Continental actually maintained validity of contracts
o || letters where it impliedly recognized validity of contracts bet
Holiday and sps
o Never refuted authority given to Holiday before filing of
complaint
 + 1869, CC: may be express or implied from acts of p, silence, inaction, failure to
repudiate…
 Not a contract of sale. || Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Constantino
 Primordial diff bet sale and agency: transfer of ownership or title over
the property subj of the contract
o Agency: principal retains ownership and control; agent merely
acts on p’s behalf and under instructions in furtherance of
objectives for which agency was established
o Sale: title transfers (intention of parties), along with ownership
and control, in such a way that recipient may do with property
as he pleases
o Liability of principal for agent’s ees depends evidence that principal also at fault or
negligent in control and supervision
 || China Air Lines: airline company not completely exonerated from any liability
for tort committed by agent’s ees
 Cause of action must be determined.
o If quasi-delict: must show airline at fault or negligent or
contributed to negligence or tortuous conduct of agent’s ee
o If contract: prove existence of contract and fact of non-
performance or breach by carrier
 No evidence to support liability for tort (exercise or control of CAI over Mager)
o Sps not entitled to refund
 Even if Continental liable for Mager, no showing that Mager acted fraudulently
o If there was fraud, sps deemed to have ratified the contracts anyway
 In seeking rescission, sps admitted impliedly the validity of subject contracts. Forfeited
right to annulment
 Party cannot rely on contract and claim rts or obligations under it and at the same time
impugn its existence or validity
o Contracts cannot be rescinded for slight, casual breach
 Non-transferability cannot be inferred from letter or tickets. CAI cannot take advantage
of ambiguity. Cannot refuse transfer of Lourdes’ ticket
 Refusal = casual breach only; not essential to fulfillment of undertaking to reissue
o Both in default—refusal to transfer and refusal to pay amount not covered
o DENIED
 II. What is the form of the contract of agency?

Art 1869. Agency may be

express
or implied from the acts of the principal,
from his silence or lack of action,
or his failure to repudiate the agency
knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority.
Agency may be oral,
unless the law requires a special form.

Art 1874. When a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein

is through an agent,
the authority of the latter shall be in writing;
otherwise, the sale shall be void

A. Oral

B. Written

Agency, 67-96

III. Who has the obligation to determine existence and scope of agency?