ATP13.1 Herera, etc. vs. Luy Kim Guan, et al.

, L-17043, January 31, 1961

FACTS: Natividad Herrera is a legitimate daughter of Luis Herrera who owned (3)
parcels of land and before leaving for China, he executed a Deed of General Power of
Attorney in favor Luy Kim Guan authorizing him to administer and sell the properties.
Luy Kim, in his capacity as an attorney-in-fact sold lot 1740 to Luy chay who then
executed a deed of sale in favor of one Lino Bangayan. Luy Kim, acting again as an
attorney-in-fact sold to Nicomedes Salazar ½ of the two lots. Luy Kim and Salazar
executed a deed of mortgage in favor of BPI. Luy Kim and Nicomedes sold part of the
remaining lot to Carlos Cizantos. Salazar then sold his remaining interest to Lino
Bangayan and Luy Kim Guan, both are as co-owners. Both Natividad Herrera and Luy
Kim Guan admitted that Luis Herrera is now deceased. The appellants contend that the
abovementioned transactions were fraudulent and were executed after the death of Luis
Herrera (principal) when the power of attorney was no longer operative.

ISSUE: WON The transactions were null and void because they are executed after the
death of the principal?

RULING: No. They were executed by the attorney-in-fact after the death of his
Principal, but the date of death of Luis Herrera has not been satisfactorily proven. The
documents were executed during the lifetime of the principal. Even granting arguendo
that Luis Herrera did die in 1936, plaintiffs presented no proof and there is no indication
in the record, that Luy Kim Guan was aware of the death of his prince at the time he sold
the property. The death of the principal does not render the act of an agent unenforceable,
where the latter had no knowledge of such extinguishment the agency.

ATP 13.1 The Manila Remnant Co., Inc., vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 82978
FACTS: Manila Remnant Co. is the owner of Capital Homes Subdivision and Artemio
Valencia as President. A.U. Valencia and Co., is the authorized agent of Manila Remnant
to develop the subdivision with authority to manage the sales. Artemio is also the
president of this company. Sometime in March 1970, Artemio, executed contracts to sell
with Ventanilla two lots amounting to P66k to paid monthly for 10 years. After 10 days,
Artemio Valencia sold the same lots without informing Ventanilla to Crisostomo, his
sales agent without any consideration. Artemio then transmitted the fictitious Crisostomo
contracts to Manila Remnant while he kept in his files the contracts to sell in favor of the
Ventanillas. All the amounts paid by the Ventanillas were deposited in Valencia's bank
account and this is remitted to Manila Remnant in favor of Crisostomo. Ventanilla is not
aware of Valencia's scheme and thus continued paying monthly installments. Later
Manila Remnant terminated its collection agreement with AU Valencia due to
discrepancies and he was removed as the President. The Ventanilla couple unaware of the
circumstances happened, continued paying their installments to Valencia and upon
learning, they went to Manila Remnant to pay their balance but to their shock they
discovered that their names did not appear in the records of A.U. Valencia and Co. as lot
buyers. Thus, the Ventanillas commenced an action for specific performance, annulment
of deeds and damages against Manila Remnant, A.U. Valencia and Co. and Carlos
Crisostomo. Lower court's rendered judgment in favor of Ventanilla.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Manila Remnant should be held solidarily liable
together with A.U. Valencia and Co. and Carlos Crisostomo for the payment of moral,
exemplary damages and attorney's fees in favor of the Ventanillas

RULING: Yes. The unique relationship existing between the principal and the agent at
the time of the dual sale must be underscored. The president then of both firms was
Artemio U. Valencia, the individual directly responsible for the sale scam. Hence, despite
the fact that the double sale was beyond the power of the agent, Manila Remnant as
principal was
chargeable with the knowledge or constructive notice of that fact and not having done
anything to correct such an irregularity was deemed to have ratified the same.