1. RALLOS V YANGCO FACTS: * Yangco sent Rallos a letter inviting the latter to be the consignor in buying and selling leaf tobacco and other native products. Terms and conditions were also contained in the letter. * Accepting the invitation, Rallos proceeded to do a considerable business with Yangco trhough the said Collantes, as his factor, sending to him as agent for Yangco a good deal of produce to be sold on commission. * Rallos sent to the said Collantes, as agent for Yangco, 218 bundles of tobacco in the leaf to be sold on commission, as had been other produce previously. * The said Collantes received said tobacco and sold it for the sum of P1,744. The charges for such sale were P206.96, leaving in the hands of said Collantes the sum of 1,537.08 belonging to Rallos. This sum was, apparently, converted to his own use by said agent. * It appears, however, that prior to the sending of said tobacco Yangco had severed his relations with Collantes and that the latter was no longer acting as his factor. This fact was not known to Rallos; and it is conceded in the case that no notice of any kind was given by Yangco of the termination of the relations between Yangco and his agent, Collantes. * Yangco thus refused to pay the said sum upon demand of Rallos, placing such refusal upon the ground that at the time the said tobacco was received and sold by Collantes, he was acting personally and not as agent of Yangco. ISSUE: W/N Collantes is an agent of Yangco. If so, Yangco as principal must refund to Rallos the said sum brought by the sale of the produce RULING: Yes Yangco, as principal is liable. Having advertised the fact that Collantes was his agent and having given special notice to Rallos of that fact, and having given them a special invitation to deal with such agent, it was the duty of Yangco on the termination of the relationship of the principal and agent to give due and timely notice thereof to Rallos. Failing to do so, he is responsible to them for whatever goods may been in good faith and without negligence sent to the agent without knowledge, actual or constructive, of the termination of such relationship
JIMENEZ V RABOT FACTS: * Gregorio Jimenez filed this action to recover from Rabot, a parcel of land situated in Alaminos, Pangasinan * The property in question, together with two other parcels in the same locality originally belonged to Jimenez, having been assigned to him as one of the heirs in the division of the estate of his father * It further appears that while Gregorio Jimenez was staying at Vigan, Ilocos Sur, his property in Alaminos was confided by him to the care of his elder sister Nicolasa Jimenez.
* He wrote his sister a letter from Vigan in which he informed her that he was pressed for money and requested her to sell one of his parcels of land and send him the money in order that he might pay his debts. The letter contains no description of the land to be sold other than is indicated in the words “one of my parcels of land”. * Acting upon this letter, Nicolasa approached Rabot and the latter agreed to buy the property for the sum of P500. P250 was paid at once, with the understanding that a deed of conveyance would be executed when the balance should be paid. * Nicolasa admits having received this payment but there is no evidence that she sent it to her brother * After one year, Gregorio Jimenez went back to Alaminos and demanded that his sister surrender the piece of land to him, it being then in her possession. * She refused upon some pretext or other to do so and as a result, plaintiff instituted an action to recover the land from her control * Meanwhile, Nicolasa executed and delivered to Rabot a deed purporting to convey to him the parcel of land ISSUE: W/N the authority conferred on Nicolasa by the letter was sufficient to enable her to bind her brother of the sale made in favor of Rabot RULING: Yes As a matter of formality, a power of attorney to convey real property ought to appear in a public document, just as any other instrument intended to transmit or convey an interest in such property ought to appear in a public document Art. 1713 of the Civil Code requires that the authority to alienate land shall be contained in an express mandate Subsection 5 of section 335 of Code of Civil Procedure say that the authority of the agent must be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged SC: the authority expressed in the letter is a sufficient compliancw tih both requirements The purpose in giving a power of attorney is to substitute the mind and hand of the agent for the mind and hand of the principal; and if the character and extent of the power is so defined as to leave no doubt as to the limits within which the agent is authorized to act, and he acts within those limits, the principal cannot question the validity of his act The general rule here applicable is that the description must be sufficiently definite to identify the land either from the recitals of the contract or deed or from external facts referred to in the document, thereby enabling one to determine the identity of the land and if the description is uncertain on its face or is shown to be applicable with equal plausibility to more than one tract, it is insufficient.
