Gutierrez Hermanos v Engracio Orense GR No.

L-9188 12/4/1914 Facts of the case: Jose Duran, the nephew of Engracio Orense sold a parcel of land owned by the latter to Gutierrez Hermanos in 1907 for the amount of 1,500 pesos. The sale also stipulates that Jose Duran has the right of repurchase within a period of 4 years. Gutierrez Hermanos did not acquire actual possession of the land because Engracio and Jose Duran were still occupying the said land. After the lapse of 4 years, Duran still refused to convey possession of the land thus forcing Hermanos to file a criminal complaint of Estafa. Engracio, stepped forward as a witness and testified that consent was given by him in the sale of his land by his nephew, thus acquitting Duran of the charges. Subsequently, Engracio was sued by Hermanos. Engracio however contended first, that the land was rightfully his since in the property registry, the ownership was recorded with his name; second, no SPA was executed in favor Duran to sell the land, nor was there authority given verbally to Duran to sell the land; third; his knowledge of the sale was acquired long after the actual sale took place; fourth, he did not intentionally and deliberately perform any act that might have induced Hermanos to believe that Duran had the authority to sell. Issue: Whether or not the land was legitimately sold to Hermanos by Duran? Held: Yes. Ratio: Notwithstanding the allegations of the defendant, the record in this case shows that he did give his consent in order that his nephew, Jose Duran, might sell the property in question to Gutierrez Hermanos, and that he did thereafter confirm and ratify the sale by means of a public instrument executed before a notary. It having been proven at the trial that he gave his consent to the said sale, it follows that the defendant conferred verbal, or at least implied, power of agency upon his nephew Duran, who accepted it in the same way by selling the said property. The principal must therefore fulfill all the obligations contracted by the agent, who acted within the scope of his authority. (Civil Code, arts. 1709, 1710 and 1727.) Even should it be held that the said consent was granted subsequently to the sale, it is unquestionable that the defendant, the owner of the property, approved the action of his nephew,

who in this case acted as the manager of his uncle's business, and Orense'r ratification produced the effect of an express authorization to make the said sale. (Civil Code, arts. 1888 and 1892.) Article 1259 of the Civil Code prescribes: "No one can contract in the name of another without being authorized by him or without his legal representation according to law. A contract executed in the name of another by one who has neither his authorization nor legal representation shall be void, unless it should be ratified by the person in whose name it was executed before being revoked by the other contracting party. The repeated and successive statements made by the defendant Orense in two actions, wherein he affirmed that he had given his consent to the sale of his property, meet the requirements of the law and legally excuse the lack of written authority, and, as they are a full ratification of the acts executed by his nephew Jose Duran, they produce the effects of an express power of agency.