You are on page 1of 1

UNILAND RESOURCES v.

DBP - In this case, it was petitioner who advised Glaxo, Philippines of the availability of the
Obligations of Principal to Agents | 16 August 1991 | J. Gancayco warehouse property and aroused its interest over the same. Through petitioner, respondent
DBP was directly informed of the existence of an interested buyer.
Digest maker: Africa

SUMMARY: Petitioner demanded payment of compensation fee from DPB in light of the RULING: Petition GRANTED.
latter’s concluded sale with Charges Realty Corp, an affiliate of Glaxo Philippines, which
was the petitioner’s client. Court held that although DBP didn’t grant accreditation to
Uniland, the latter shall be paid on account of equity considerations.

DOCTRINE: In Prats v. CA, although agent was not the efficient procuring cause, he/she
may be paid a compensation fee when it is proven that it exerted efforts and assistance to
conclude the transaction.

FACTS:
1. Marinduque Mining Corporation obtained a loan from the DBP and as security therefor,
mortgaged certain real properties to the latter. These two lots had, however, been
previously mortgaged to Caltex. For failure of the Marinduque Mining Corp. to pay its
obligations to Caltex, the latter foreclosed its mortgage on the aforesaid two lots.
2. APT on the other hand, to recover its investment on the Marinduque Account, offered for
sale to the public through DBP its right of redemption on said two lots by public bidding.
However, the bidding only had one bidder, the Counsel Realty Corp (an affiliate of Glaxo,
Philippines, the client of Uniland), and only for the warehouse lot.
3. Seeing, however, that it would make a profit if it redeemed the two lots and then offer
them for sale, DBP retrieved the account from APT and redeemed said lots. DBP
subsequently held a public bidding and again, there was only one bidder, the Charges
Realty Corp., another affiliate of Glaxo Philippines.
4. After the aforesaid sale, Uniland asked for payment of its broker's fee in instrumenting the
sale of the warehouse lot to Charges Realty Corp. As evidence, petitioner presented letters
sent to DBP prior the sale, requesting that they be accredited as a broker.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:


1. WON petitioner should be given broker’s fee. — YES
- In the course of the dealings, it was made clear that only accredited brokers may look for
buyers. Petitioner was never able to secure the required accreditation. The letters merely
indicated its desire to secure such, but there was no reply from DBP agreeing to it.
- However, the Court held that petition should be granted on account of equity considerations
pursuant to Prats v. CA, where it was held that although agent was not the efficient
procuring cause, it exerted efforts and assistance to conclude the transaction, and therefore
must be paid.

You might also like