NO.

CASE ESCRA DIGEST

1 G.R. No. L-57339 December 29, 1983
AIR FRANCE, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE G.
GANA (Deceased), CLARA A. GANA, RAMON
GANA, MANUEL GANA, MARIA TERESA GANA,
ROBERTO GANA, JAIME JAVIER GANA,
CLOTILDE VDA. DE AREVALO, and EMILY SAN
JUAN, respondents.
Civil Law; Contracts; Air carrier, not liable for breach of contract for having dishonored plane
tickets of persons which had expired.From the foregoing tariff rules, it is clear that AIR FRANCE
cannot be faulted for breach of contract when it dishonored the tickets of the GANAS after 8 FULL TEXT
May 1971 since those tickets expired on said date.
Same; Same; Agency; Notice to travel agent of rejection of request for extension of validity of
plane tickets, also notice to the principals.The GANAS cannot defend by contending lack of
knowledge of those rules since the evidence bears out that Teresita, who handled travel
arrangements for the GANAS, was duly informed by travel agent Ella of the advice of Rillo, the
Office Manager of Air France, that the tickets in question could not be extended beyond the
period of their validity without paying the fare differentials and additional travel taxes brought
about by the increased fare rate and travel taxes. The ruling relied on by respondent Appellate
Court, therefore, in KLM vs. Court of Appeals, 65 SCRA 237 (1975), holding that it would be
unfair to charge respondents therein with automatic knowledge or notice of conditions in
contracts of adhesion, is inapplicable. To all legal intents and purposes, Teresita was the agent of
the GANAS and notice to her of the rejection of the request for extension of the validity of the
tickets was notice to the GANAS, her principals.

Same; Same; Ratification, not a case of; Fact that passengers allowed to leave by airport ticket
counter personnel, not implied ratification of irregular actuations of travel agent.The
circumstance that AIR FRANCE personnel at the ticket counter in the airport allowed the GANAS
to leave is not tantamount to an implied ratification of travel agent Ella's irregular actuations. It
should be recalled that the GANAS left Manila the day before the expiry date of their tickets and
that "other arrangements" were to be made with respect to the remaining segments. Besides,
the validating stickers that Ella affixed on his own merely reflect the status of reservations on the
specified flight and could not legally serve to extend the validity of a ticket or revive an expired
one. Air France vs. Court of Appeals, 126 SCRA 448, No. L- 57339 December 29, 1983
2

[G.R. No. 79688. February 1, 1996]
PLEASANTVILLE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT
OF APPEALS, WILSON KEE, C.T.
TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. and
ELDRED JARDINICO, respondents.
ivil Law; Property; Builder in Good Faith; Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the
Court of Appeals that Kee was a builder in good faith.Petitioner fails to persuade this Court to
abandon the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals that Kee was a builder in good
faith.
Same; Same; Same; Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on
is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title.Good faith consists in the belief of the
builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title.
And as good faith is presumed, petitioner has the burden of proving bad faith on the part of Kee.
At the time he built improvements on Lot 8, Kee believed that said lot was what he bought from
petitioner. He was not aware that the lot delivered to him was not Lot 8. Thus, Kees good faith.
Petitioner failed to prove otherwise.
Same; Same; Same; Violation of the Contract of Sale on Installment may not be the basis to
negate the presumption that Kee was a builder in good faith.Such violations have no bearing
whatsoever on whether Kee was a builder in good faith, that is, on his state of mind at the time
he built the improvements on Lot 9. These alleged violations may give rise to petitioners cause
of action against Kee under the said contract (contractual breach), but may not be bases to
negate the presumption that Kee was a builder in good faith.
Same; Same; Waiver; Rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order,
public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by
law.We do not agree with the interpretation of petitioner that Kee contracted away his right
PLEASANTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. COURT OF
APPEALSG.R. NO. 79688 253 SCRA 10 FEBRUARY 1, 1996PONENTE: PANGANIBAN, J.
Doctrine:
Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that he land he is building on is his and
hisignorance of any defect or flaw in his title. The burden of proving bad faith belongs to the
one asserting it.
Facts:
Edith Robillo purchased from Pleasantville Development Corporation, herein petitioner a
parcel ofland at Pleasantville Subdivision, Bacolod City. The property was designated as Lot 9,
Phase II. In 1975,herein respondent Eldred Jardinico bought the said subject lot from the
former purchaser. Eldred laterdiscovered that the property he purchased had improvements
introduced therein by respondent WilsonKee.Kee on the other hand bought on installments Lot
8 of the same subdivision from C.T. TorresEnterprises, Inc. (CTTEI) which is the exclusive real
estate agent of the petitioner. Under the contract Keewas allowed to take possession of the
property even before full payment of the price. CTTEI through an
employee, Zenaida Octaviano accompanied Kees wife Donabelle to inspect Lot No.
8. Octavianohowever mistakenly pointed towards Lot 9. Hence spouses Kee had their
residence, an auto repair shop,a store and other improvements constructed on the wrong
lot.Upon discovery of the blunder both Kee and Jardinico tried to reach an amicable settlement
butthey failed. Jardinico demanded that the improvements be removed but as Kee refused,
Jardinico filed acomplaint for ejectment with damages against Kee at the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC) ofBacolod City. Kee filed a third-party complaint against herein petitioner and
CTTEI.The MTCC found that the error was attributable to CTTEI also since at present the
 to recover damages resulting from petitioners negligence. Such waiver would be contrary to
public policy and cannot be allowed. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law,
public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.
Same; Agency; Damages; Rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of the agent, done
within the scope of his authority and should bear the damage caused to third persons.The rule
is that the principal is responsible for the acts of the agent, done within the scope of his
authority, and should bear the damage caused to third persons. On the other hand, the agent
who exceeds his authority is personally liable for the damage.
Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10, G.R. No. 79688
February 1, 1996
3 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY (now AYALA LIFE
ASSURANCE, INC.), Civil Law; Agency; The general rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of its agent
Petitioner, done within the scope of its authority and should bear the damage caused to third persons; The
-VERSUS- acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal, unless the principal
CLEMENTE N. PEDROSO, ratifies them, expressly or impliedly.Filipinas Life, as the principal, is liable for obligations
TERESITA O. PEDROSO and JENNIFER N. contracted by its agent Valle. By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some
PALACIO thru her Attorney-in-Fact PONCIANO C. service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or
MARQUEZ, authority of the latter. The general rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of its agent
Respondents. done within the scope of its authority, and should bear the damage caused to third persons.
G.R. No. 159489 When the agent exceeds his authority, the agent becomes personally liable for the damage. But
even when the agent exceeds his authority, the principal is still solidarily liable together with the
agent if the principal allowed the agent to act as though the agent had full powers. In other
contract with
Kee has rescinded for Kees failure to pay installments. Kee no longer had any
right over the subje
ctproperty and must pay rentals for its use. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City
ruled thatpetitioner and CTTEI were not at fault or were not negligent. It argued that Kee was a
builder in bad faith.Even if assuming that he was in good faith, he was no longer so and must
pay rentals from the time thathe was given notice to vacate the lot. The Court of Appeals ruled
that Kee was a builder in good faith ashe was unaware of the mix-up when he constructed the
improvements. It was in fact due to thenegligence and wrongful delivery of CTTEI which
included its principal the herein petitioner. It furtherruled that the award of rental was without
basis.Pending the resolution of the case at the Court of Appeals Jardinico and Kee entered
into a deedof sale, wherein Lot 9 was sold to Kee. In the said deed a provision stating that
regardless of the outcomeof the decision, such shall not be pursued by the parties and shall be
considered dismissed and withouteffect. The appellate court was not informed of this deal.
Issue:
Whether or not a lot buyer who constructs improvements on the wrong property erroneously
delivered by the owners agent, a builder in good faith?
Held:
Yes. Article 527 of the Civil Code provides the presumption that petitioner has the burden
ofproving that Kee was a builder in bad faith. Kee may be made liable for the violation of the
contract withCTTEI but this may not be used as a basis of bad faith and as a sufficient ground
to negate thepresumption of good faith. Jardinico is presently only allowed to file a complaint
for unlawful detainer.Good faith is based on the belief of the builder that the land he is building
on is his and his ignorance ofany flaw or defect in is title. Since at the time when Kee
constructed his improvements on Lot 8, he wasnot aware that it was actually Lot 9 that was
delivered to him. Petitioner further contends that Kee wasnegligent as a provision in the
Contract of Sale on Installment stated that the vendee must have
personally examined the property and shall bear on his own the consequential expenses in the
changesthat may happen thereon. The court held that such provision cannot be interpreted as
a waiver of the
vendees right to recover damages resulting from petitioners negligence. Such
interpretation of thewaiver is contrary to law and public policy and cannot be allowed.
Petitioner cannot claim and excuseitself from liability by claiming that it was not directly
involved in the delivery of the property. The principalmust be responsible for the acts of the
agent done within the scope of his authority. CTTEI was the solereal estate representative of
the petitioner when the delivery was made. Wilson Kee is therefore declareda builder in good
faith. Petitioner and respondent CTTEI are declared solidarily liable for damages due
tonegligence. The award of rentals to Jardinico is dispensed with.
Teresita Pedroso, a policyholder of a life insurance issued by Filipinas Life Assurance Co. Pedroso claims
Renato Valle was her insurance agent since 1972 and Valle collected her monthly premiums. In the first
week of January 1977, Valle told her that the Filipinas Life Escolta Office was holding a promotional
investment program for policyholders. Enticed, she initially invested and issued a post-dated check for
P10,000. In return, Valle issued Pedroso his personal check forP800 for the 8% prepaid interest and a
Filipinas Life Agent receipt. Pedroso called the Escolta office and talked to Francisco Alcantara, the
administrative assistant, who referred her to the branch manager, Angel Apetrior. Pedroso inquired
about the promotional investment and Apetrior confirmed that there was such a promotion. She was
even told she could push through with the check she issued. From the records, the check, with the
endorsement of Alcantara at the back, was deposited in the account of Filipinas Life with the
Commercial Bank andTrustCompany,EscoltaBranch. Relying on the representations made by Filipinas
Lifes duly authorized representatives Apetrior and Alcantara, as well as having known agent Valle for

4
G.R. No. L-15297 November 25, 1921
ISIDRO NANTES, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
DAMIAN MADRIGUERA and ANACLETO
CAINTO, defendants-appellees.
5 G.R. No. L-20697 December 24, 1964
EUSEBIO M. LOPEZ, EUSEBIO LOPEZ, JR.,
DEOGRACIAS P. LIRIO, SOLEDAD LIRIO-
DOLOR and RENATO C. DOLOR, in his capacity
as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate
of the late Faustino Dolor, petitioners,
vs.
HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA as presiding
judge of branch XVI, CFI Manila, DAVID
MINSBERG, ADELAIDA S. MINSBERG, and CITY
SHERIFF OF MANILA, respondents.
words, the acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal, unless
the principal ratifies them, expressly or impliedly. Ratification in agency is the adoption or
confirmation by one person of an act performed on his behalf by another without authority.
Same; Same; Innocent third persons should not be prejudiced if the principal failed to adopt the
needed measures to prevent misrepresentation, much more so if the principal ratified his
agents acts beyond the latters authority.Filipinas Life cannot profess ignorance of Valles acts.
Even if Valles representations were beyond his authority as a debit/insurance agent, Filipinas
Life thru Alcantara and Apetrior expressly and knowingly ratified Valles acts. It cannot even be
denied that Filipinas Life benefited from the investments deposited by Valle in the account of
Filipinas Life. In our considered view, Filipinas Life had clothed Valle with apparent authority;
hence, it is now estopped to deny said authority. Innocent third persons should not be
prejudiced if the principal failed to adopt the needed measures to prevent misrepresentation,
much more so if the principal ratified his agents acts beyond the latters authority. The act of
the agent is considered that of the principal itself. Qui per alium facit per seipsum facere videtur.
He who does a thing by an agent is considered as doing it himself. Filipinas Life Assurance
Company vs. Pedroso, 543 SCRA 542, G.R. No. 159489 February 4, 2008
Certiorari; Mistakes of fact or of law not within the reach of certiorari; Appeal the proper
remedy.Mere mistakes of fact or errors of judgment and/or of law by a trial court are not
within the reach of a writ of certiorari. If petitioners did not agree with the orders complained of,
they could have appealed them. Certiorari is not a substitute for appeal.
Agency; Principal liable for acts of agent within scope of authority.The principal is responsible
for the acts of the agent, done within the scope of his authority, and should bear the damages
caused to third parties. Lopez vs. Alvendia, 12 SCRA 634, No. L-20697 December 24, 1964
quite some time, Pedroso waited for the maturity of her initial investment. A month after, her
investment of P10,000 was returned to her after she made a written request for its refund. To collect
the amount, Pedroso personally went to the Escoltabranch where Alcantara gave her the P10,000 in
cash. After a second investment, she made 7 to 8more investments in varying amounts, totaling
P37,000 but at a lower rate of 5% prepaid interest a month. Upon maturity of Pedrosos subsequent
investments, Valle would take back from Pedroso the corresponding agents receipt he issued to the
latter. Pedroso told respondent Jennifer Palacio, also a Filipinas Life insurance policyholder, about
theinvestment plan. Palacio made a total investment of P49,550 but at only 5% prepaid interest.
However, when Pedroso tried to withdraw her investment, Valle did not want to return some
P17,000worth of it. Palacio also tried to withdraw hers, but Filipinas Life, despite demands, refused to
return her money.
WON Filipinas Life is jointly and severally liable with Apetrior and Alcantara on the claim of Pedroso
and Palacio or
WON its agent Renato Valle is solely liable to Pedroso and Palacio Filipinas Life, as the principal, is
liable for obligations contracted by its agent Valle.
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. The general rule is
that the principal is responsible for the acts of its agent done within the scope of its authority, and
should bear the damage caused to third persons. When the agent exceeds his authority, the agent
becomespersonally liable for the damage. But even when the agent exceeds his authority, the principal
is still solidarily liable together with the agent if the principal allowed the agent to act as though the
agent had full powers. The acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal,
unless the principal ratifies them, expressly or impliedly. Ratification, adoption or confirmation by one
person of an act performed on his behalf by another without authority. Even if Valles representations
were beyond his authority as a debit/insurance agent, Filipinas Life thru Alcantara and Apetrior
expressly and knowingly ratified Valles acts. Filipinas Life benefited from the investments deposited by
Valle in the account of Filipinas Life.
FULL TEXT
FULL TEXT