Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RURAL BANK OF BOMBON v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179625 2014-02-24	NICANORA G. BUCTON v. RURAL BANK OF EL SALVADOR DEL CASTILLO, J.
As early as the case of Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. Poizat,[76] we already ruled that "in order to bind the principal by a deed executed by an agent, the deed must upon its face purport to be made, signed and sealed in the name of the principal."[77] In other words, the mere fact that the agent was authorized to mortgage the property is not sufficient to bind the principal, unless the deed was executed and signed by the agent for and on behalf of his principal. This ruling was adhered to and reiterated with consistency in the cases of Rural Bank of Bombon (Camarines Sur), Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[78] Gozun v. Mercado,[79] and Far East Bank and Trust Company (Now Bank of the Philippine Island) v. Cayetano.[80]
	GR No. 179909 2010-01-25	FAR EAST BANK v. SPS. ERNESTO AND LEONOR C. CAYETANO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The issue is not novel. The RTC and the Court of Appeals are both correct in holding that our decision in The Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co., Ltd., Inc. v. Poizat, et al.[17] (Poizat Case), as reiterated in the case of Rural Bank of Bombon (Camarines Sur), Inc. v. Court of Appeals[18] (Bombon Case), finds application in the instant case. The factual circumstances of said cases are similar to the case at bar, where an authorized agent executed a real estate mortgage on the principal's property in her own name without indicating that she was acting on behalf of the principal.
	GR NO. 167812 2006-12-19	JESUS M. GOZUN v. JOSE TEOFILO T. MERCADO CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is a general rule in the law of agency that, in order to bind the principal by a mortgage on real property executed by an agent, it must upon its face purport to be made, signed and sealed in the name of the principal, otherwise, it will bind the agent only. It is not enough merely that the agent was in fact authorized to make the mortgage, if he has not acted in the name of the principal. x x x[36] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) On the amount due him and the other two printing presses, petitioner explains that he was the one who personally and directly contracted with respondent and he merely sub-contracted the two printing establishments in order to deliver on time the campaign materials ordered by respondent.