This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-02-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is, indeed, a familiar and universally recognized doctrine that a person who undertakes to act as agent for another cannot be permitted to deal in the agency matter on his own account and for his own benefit without the consent of his principal, freely given, with full knowledge of every detail known to the agent which might affect the transaction.[40] The prohibition against agents purchasing property in their hands for sale or management is, however, clearly, not absolute. It does not apply where the principal consents to the sale of the property in the hands of the agent or administrator.[41] | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Distajo vs. Court of Appeals,[12] a landowner, Iluminada Abiertas, designated one of her sons as the administrator of several parcels of her land. The landowner subsequently executed a Deed of Certification of Sale of Unregistered Land, conveying some of said land to her son/administrator. Therein, we held that:Under paragraph (2) of the above article, the prohibition against agents purchasing property in their hands for sale or management is not absolute. It does not apply if the principal consents to the sale of the property in the hands of the agent or administrator. In this case, the deeds of sale signed by Iluminada Abiertas shows that she gave consent to the sale of the properties in favor of her son, Rufo, who was the administrator of the properties. Thus, the consent of the principal Iluminada Abiertas removes the transaction out of the prohibition contained in Article 1491(2).[13] | |||||