123. Rallos vs. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp.

, 81 SCRA 251 Facts: -Simeon Rallos had an SPA from his sisters Concepcion and Gerunda to sell a parcel of land.

agent had no knowledge of principal's death and third person who contracted with agent acted in good faith (i.e. third person also did not know of death of principal)

-Simeon knew of Concepcion's death, thus the first condition of Art. -Concepcion dies intestate and Simeon sells land to respondent prior 1931 was not fulfilled and as such Art. 1931 may not be applied. to partition of Concepcion's estate Good faith of third party is not enough. -Administrator of the estate Ramon Rallos, the petitioner, files a -Respondent further argues that no notice of death was annotated in complaint praying to render sale unenforceable and for reconveyance certificate of title and further argue that revocation of SPA to be of said land to the estate effective must be communicated to the third party. Respondent however, is conflating revocation as an act of the principal versus Issues: revocation by operation of law (e.g. death of the principal). The 1. WON agent may convey said land despite death of his principal former needs to be communicated to third parties in order to be 2. WON good faith of the buyer constitutes an exception to effective; the latter is instantaneously effective extinguishment of agency via death 3. WON the lack of notice of principal's death on certificate of title is -compared to property purchase in good faith by a party from one fatal to the petitioner's cause of action who acquired said property in bad faith, case at bar is fundamentally different because there was an agent who sold said property after Held/Ratio: knowing of the death of his principal 1. No. -Agency is extinguished by the death of either the principal or agent 3. No. per Art. 19191 -Art. 1932 only provides for an obligation of the heirs of the agent to notify the principal of the agent's death; no duty is imposed on heirs 2. No. of the principals to notify the agent of the principal's death. As such, -Exceptions provided for by law to Art. 1919(3) are Articles 1930 and the fact that no notice of principal's death was registered on 1931 Certificate of Title is not fatal to the petitioner's cause of action -Art. 1930 does not apply since special power of attorney executed in Disposition: favor of Simeon Rallos was not coupled with an interest Sale to respondent null and void, TCT issued to respondent cancelled -Thus, Art. 1931 is controlling, and two conditions need to be determined: 1ART. 1919. Agency is extinguished.
xxx xxx xxx 3. By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent;

124. Diolosa vs. CA and Baterna Facts: -private respondent, a licensed real estate broker, was constituted as exclusive sales agent of the petitioners (and their successors, heirs and assigns) to dispose of, sell, cede, transfer and convey the lots included in Villa Alegre Subdivision (owned by the petitioners)

-Per CA: Article 1920 of the Civil Code of the Philippines notwithstanding, the defendants could not terminate the agency agreement at will without paying damages due to breach of contract. The said agency agreement expressly stipulated "until all the subject property as subdivided is fully disposed of"

-testimony that the private respondent agreed to the intention of Mrs. -petitioners subsequently terminated the services of plaintiff as their Diolosa to reserve some lots for her own family use cannot prevail exclusive sales agent over the clear terms of the agency agreement. Moreover, private respondent denied that there was an agreement to reserve any of the -private respondent contends: lots for the family of the petitioners. That under the terms of the contract the plaintiff had irrevocable authority to sell all the lots included in the Villa -And even if all of the petitioner's heirs were given one lot each, there Alegre Subdivision and to act as exclusive sales agent of the would still be other lots available for sale defendants "until all the subject property as subdivided is -Arts. 1381 and 1382 provides grounds for rescission. In the case at fully disposed of"; That the rescission of the contract per petitioner's letter bar, not one of the grounds for rescission is present, much less can signifying their intent to reserve unsold lots for their petitioners claim that the private respondent violated the terms of their agreement - such as failure to deliver to petitioners the proceeds grandchildren, contravenes the agreement of the parties. of the purchase price of the lots. -petitioners contend: That they were within their legal right to terminate the agency Disposition: on the ground that they needed the undisposed lots for the use Petition dismissed. of the family; That the plaintiff has no right in law to claim for commission on lots that they have not sold. Issue: WON petitioners could terminate the agency agreement without paying damages to the private respondent. Held/Ratio: No. -Contract of agency could not be terminated at will by the Principal without paying damages due to breach of contract.