Scribd
Upload
55 views2 pages

Rallos vs. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp.

This case involves an attorney-in-fact, Simeon Rallos, who sold the land of his deceased principal, Concepcion Rallos, using the power of attorney after her death. The administrator of Concepcion's estate challenged the sale. The trial court invalidated the sale but the Court of Appeals upheld it. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that Simeon's authority ended with Concepcion's death, as death generally extinguishes an agent's authority. The sale did not fall under exceptions as the power of attorney was not for Simeon and Concepcion's common interest, and Simeon knew of her death. The sale was declared null and

Uploaded by

encinajarianjay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views2 pages

Rallos vs. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp.

This case involves an attorney-in-fact, Simeon Rallos, who sold the land of his deceased principal, Concepcion Rallos, using the power of attorney after her death. The administrator of Concepcion's estate challenged the sale. The trial court invalidated the sale but the Court of Appeals upheld it. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that Simeon's authority ended with Concepcion's death, as death generally extinguishes an agent's authority. The sale did not fall under exceptions as the power of attorney was not for Simeon and Concepcion's common interest, and Simeon knew of her death. The sale was declared null and

Uploaded by

encinajarianjay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

L-24332 January 31, 1978

RAMON RALLOS, Administrator of the Estate of CONCEPCION RALLOS, petitioner,


vs.
FELIX GO CHAN & SONS REALTY CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Seno, Mendoza & Associates for petitioner.

Ramon Duterte for private respondent.

MUÑOZ PALMA, J.:

This is a case of an attorney-in-fact, Simeon Rallos, who after of his death of his principal, Concepcion
Rallos, sold the latter's undivided share in a parcel of land pursuant to a power of attorney which the
principal had executed in favor. The administrator of the estate of the went to court to have the sale
declared uneanforceable and to recover the disposed share. The trial court granted the relief prayed for,
but upon appeal the Court of Appeals uphold the validity of the sale and the complaint.

Facts: Concepcion and Gerundia Rallos were sisters and registered co-owners of the parcel of land in
issue. They executed a special power of attorney in favor of their brother, Simeon Rallos, authorizing him
to sell such land for and in their behalf. After Concepcion died, Simeon Rallos sold the undivided shares
of his sisters Concepcion and Gerundia to Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation for the sum of
P10,686.90. New TCTs were issued to the latter. Petitioner Ramon Rallos, administrator of the Intestate
Estate of Concepcion filed a complaint praying (1) that the sale of the undivided share of the deceased
Concepcion Rallos in lot 5983 be unenforceable, and said share be reconveyed to her estate; (2) that the
Certificate of 'title issued in the name of Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation be cancelled and
another title be issued in the names of

the corporation and the "Intestate estate of Concepcion Rallos" in equal undivided and (3) that plaintiff
be indemnified by way of attorney's fees and payment of costs of suit.

Issues: Whether or not the sale fell within the exception to the general rule that death extinguishes
the authority of the agent

Held/Ratio: Yes the sale is void. The court held that no one may contract in the name of another without
being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him (Art. 1317 of the Civil
Code). Simon’s authority as agent was extinguished upon Concolacion’s death. The sale did not fall under
the exceptions to the general rule that death ipso jure extinguishes the authority of the agent. Art. 1930
inapplicable since SPA in favor of Simon Rallos was not coupled with interest and Art. 1931 inapplicable
because Rallos knew of principal Concepcion’s death. For Art 1931 to apply, both requirements must be
present. Laws on agency, the terms of which are clear and unmistakable leaving no room for an
interpretation contrary to its tenor, should apply, the law provides that death of the principal ipso jure
extinguishes the authority of the agent to sell rendering the sale to a third person in good faith
unenforceable unless at the agent had no knowledge of the principal’s death at that time (exception
under Art. 1931) Dispositive: CA Decision reversed, CFI decision affirmed. Sale was null and void. (Court
discussed relevant principles first) Relationship of Agency (concept arising from principles under Art
1317 and 1403)- one party, caged the principal (mandante), authorizes another, called the agent
(mandatario), to act for and in his behalf in transactions with third persons. -derivative in nature, power
emanating from principal -agent’s acts are acts of the principal

 Essential Elements: (1) there is consent, express or implied of the parties to establish the relationship;
(2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agents acts as a
representative and not for himself, and (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority.

 Extinguishment

Generally: among others, By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the
agent - death of the principal effects instantaneous and absolute revocation of the authority of the agent

Exceptions:  (Art. 1930) if it has been constituted in the common interest of the latter and of the
agent, or in the interest of a third person who has accepted the stipulation in his favor.  (Art. 1931)
agent acted without knowledge of the pricipal’s death and that the third person was in good faith (both
these reqs should be present)

THE AGENCY IS FOR BOTH OF THEM -COMMON INTEREST

You might also like