1 | Page

65. Orient Air Services & Hotel Representatives vs. Court of

Appeals, (Art 1868)
Agent, by legal fiction, becomes principal. In acting for the
principal, the agent, by legal fiction, becomes the principal
authorized to perform all acts which the latter would have him
do. Such a relationship can only be effected with the consent or
authority of the principal which cannot, in any way be compelled
by law or by any court.
66. Rallos vs. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp (Art 1868)
He who acts through another acts himself or He who does a
thing by an agent is considered as doing it himself. By this
legal fiction, the actual or real absence of the principal is
converted into his legal or juridical presence.
67. Air France vs. Court of Appeals (Art 1868)
Notice to the agent is, to all legal intents and purposes, notice
to the principal.
68. Santos vs. Buenconsejo (Art 1868)
Petitioner, who redeemed the share pro indiviso in a parcel of
land upon authority given by children of the owner, claims
ownership over said share.
Facts: A redeemed the share pro indiviso of B in a parcel of
land, upon the authority of a special power of attorney executed
in his favor by the children of B who is still alive. Relying
upon the power of attorney and redemption made by him, A now
claims to have acquired the share of B in the land.
Issue: Has A the right to have the portion he claims as his share
segregated and a certifi cate of title issued in his name
exclusively for said portion?
Held: No, for the following reasons:
(1) The special power of attorney authorized A to act for or on
behalf of the children of B, and hence, it could not have
possibly vested in him any property right in his own name;
(2) The children of B had no authority to execute said power of
attorney, because their father is still alive; and
(3) In consequence of said power of attorney (if valid) and
redemption, A could have acquired no more than the pro indiviso
share of B in the lot in question so that he cannot, without the
conformity of the other co-owners or a judicial decree of

2 | Page

partition, adjudicate to himself in fee simple a determinate

portion of said lot, as his share therein, to the exclusion of
the other co-owners.
69. Albaladejo y Cia vs. Phil. Refining Co. (Art 1868)
Designation by the parties. The manner in which the parties
designate the relationship is not controlling. If an act done by
one person in behalf of another is in its essential nature one of
agency, the former is the agent of the latter notwithstanding
he is not so called. Conversely, the use of the words agency
agreement and agent by the parties in a contract does not
necessarily have the effect of making one an agent who, in fact,
is not such.
70. Thomas vs. Pineda (Art 1868)
71. Palma vs. Cristobal
The rule stands on the moral obligation to refrain from placing
ones self in a position which ordinarily conflicts between selfinterest and integrity. It seeks to remove the temptation that
might arise out of such a relation to serve ones self-interest
at the expense of ones integrity and duty to another, by making
it impossible to profit by yielding to temptation.
72. Valera vs. Velasco (Art 1868)
An agent, however, can buy for himself the property placed in his
hands for sale or administration after the termination of the
agency
73. Cui vs. Cui (Art 1868)
An agent, can buy for himself the property placed in his hands
for sale or administration if the principal gives his consent
thereto.
74. Allied Free Workers Union [PLUM] vs. Compania Maritima (Art
1868)
Agent must not act for an adverse party. An agent cannot serve
two masters, unless both consent, or unless he is a mere
middleman or intermediary (e.g., real estate broker) with no
independent initiative.

3 | Page

75. Far Eastern Export & Import Co. vs. Lim Teck Suan (Art 1868)
Where a foreign company has an agent in the Philippines selling
its goods and merchandise, it was held that the same agent could
not very well act as agent for local buyers, because the interest
of his foreign principal and those of the buyers would be in
direct confl ict. He could not serve two masters at the same
time.
76. Nielson & Co., Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.
77. Shell Co., of the Phil. Ltd. vs. Firemens Ins. of Newark
78. Sevilla vs. Court of Appeals
79. Lim vs. People
80. San Diego, Sr. vs. Nombre
81. De la Pea vs. Hidalgo
82. Conde vs. Court of Appeals
83. Harry E. Keller Elec. Co. vs. Rodriguez
84. Rallos vs. Yangco
85. Macke vs. Camps, 7 Phil. 553 86. Jimenez vs. Rabot
87. Lian vs. Puno, 31 Phil. 259 88. Katigbak vs. Tai Hing Co.
89. Danon vs. Brimo & Co.
90. Infante vs. Cunanan
91. Manotok Brothers, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 224
92. Domingo vs. Domingo, 42 SCRA 131 [1971]
93. Siasat vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 139 SCRA 238
94. German & Co. vs. Donaldson, Sim & Co., 1 Phil. 63
95. Municipal Council of Iloilo vs. Evangelista, 55 Phil. 290
96. Caballero vs. Deiparine, 60 SCRA 136

4 | Page

97. Phil. National Bank vs. Sta. Maria, 29 SCRA 303

98. BA Finance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 112
99. Director of Public Works vs. Sing Juco, 53 Phil. 205
100. Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co., vs. Poizat, 48
Phil. 536
101. Rural Bank of Bombon, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 25
102. Commercial Bank & Trust Co. of
Armored Car Service Corp., 9 SCRA 142

the

Phil.

vs.

Republic

103. Lim Tiu vs. Ruiz y Rementeria, 15 Phil. 367

104. Phil. National Bank vs. Agudelo y Gonzaga, 58 Phil. 635
105. Syjuco and Viardo vs. Syjuco, 40 Phil. 634
106. National Food Authority vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
184 SCRA 166
107. Awad vs. Filma Mercantile Co., 49 Phil. 816