SY-JUCO and VIARDO v. SY-JUCO  Both parties appealed from this judgment.

January 12, 1920 | Avancena, J. | Agent acting in his own name;

exception WON the properties bought by Santiago in his own name, as
Digester: K Bernardo an administrator, belong to him. (NO, except the second
casco.)
SUMMARY: Santiago was appointed by the plaintiffs, his parents,
as administrator of their property and acted as such from 1902- RULING: Judgment appealed from affirmed except in so far as
1916. The Syjucos allege that during Santiago’s administration, he casco no. 2545 is concerned.
acquired a launch, two cascos, and and automobile in his capacity
as administrator with their (Syjucos’) money and for their benefit.
TC ruled in favor of the Syjuco and ordered Santiago to return the As to the launch Malabon
properties. SC affirmed the TC, with the exception of casco no. Santiago bought it in his own name from the Pacific
2545, which was lawfully sold to Santiago. Commercial Co., and afterwards registered it at the Custom
House.
DOCTRINE: When an agency acts in his own name, the principal But this does not necessarily show that he bought it for himself
shall have no right of action against the person with whom the and with his own money.
agent has contracted, cases involving things belonging to the  This transaction was within the agency which he had
principal are excepted. received from the plaintiffs. The fact that he has acted in
According to this exception (when things belonging to the his own name may be only, as we believe it was, a
principal are dealt with) the agent is bound to the principal violation of the agency on his part.
although he does not assume the character of such agent and  The question is not in whose favor the document of sale of the
appears acting in his own name launch is executed nor in whose name same was registered,
This means that in the case of this exception the agent's apparent but with whose money was said launch bought.
representation yields to the principal's true representation and  The plaintiffs' testimony that it was bought with their money
that, in reality and in effect, the contract must be considered as and for them is supported by the fact that, immediately after
entered into between the principal and the third person; and, its purchase, the launch had to be repaired at their expense,
consequently, if the obligations belong to the former, to him alone although said expense was collected from the defendant.
must also belong the rights arising from the contract.  Santiago invoked the case of Martinez v. Martinez.
o Martinez, Jr., bought a vessel in his own name and in his
FACTS: name registered it at the Custom House. This court then
 1902: Defendant Santiago Sy-juco was appointed by plaintiffs said that although the funds with which the vessel was
Vicente and Cipriana as administrator of their property, and bought belonged to Martinez Sr., Martinez Jr. is its sole and
acted as such until June 30, 1916, when his authority was exclusive owner.
cancelled.  But the Court ruled that this is not applicable to the case at
o Santiago is the son of Vicente and Cipriana. bar.
 Vicente and Cipriana allege that during Santiago’s o In said case the relation of principal and agent, which
administration, Santiago acquired the property claimed in the exists between the plaintiffs and the defendant in the
complaint in his capacity as the plaintiff’s administrator with present case, did not exist between Martinez, Sr., and
their money and for their benefit. Martinez, Jr. By this agency the plaintiffs herein clothed the
 TC → Ordered Santiago to return to the plaintiffs: the launch 1 defendant with their representation in order to purchase
Malabon, two cascos2, an automobile, a typewriting machine, the launch in question.
the house occupied by Santiago, and the price of the piano. o However, the defendant acted without this representation
and bought the launch in his own name thereby violating
1 launch, n. A large motorboat, used especially for short trips.
2 casco, n. A flat-bottomed, square-ended boat once used in the Philippines as a lighter to ferry
the agency. If the result of this transaction should be that
goods between ship and shore the defendant has acquired for himself the ownership of the
 launch, it would be equivalent to sanctioning this violation As to Casco no. 2584
and accepting its consequences.  Santiago’s allegation that it was constructed at his instance
o But not only must the consequences of the violation of this and with his money is not supported by the evidence.
agency not be accepted, but the effects of the agency itself  In fact the only proof presented to support this allegation is his
must be sought. own testimony contradicted, on the on hand, by the plaintiffs'
o If the defendant contracted the obligation to but the testimony and, on the other hand, rebutted by the fact that, on
launch for the plaintiffs and in their representation, the date this casco was constructed, he did not have sufficient
but virtue of the agency, notwithstanding the fact money with which to pay the expense of this construction.
that he bought it in his own name, he is obliged to
transfer to the plaintiffs the rights he received from As to the automobile
the vendor, and the plaintiffs are entitled to be  There is sufficient evidence to show that its prices was paid
subrogated in these rights. with plaintiffs' money. Defendant's adverse allegation that it
 From the rule established in Article 1717 of the Civil Code was paid with his own money is not supported by the evidence.
that, when an agency acts in his own name, the principal
shall have no right of action against the person with As to Casco no. 2545
whom the agent has contracted, cases involving things  Upon examination of the evidence relative to this casco, it was
belonging to the principal are excepted. found that it belonged to the plaintiffs but sold it afterwards to
o According to this exception (when things belonging the defendant by means of a public instrument.
to the principal are dealt with), the agent is bound to  The plaintiffs have not adduced sufficient proof of such deceit
the principal although he does not assume the (on the part of Santiago, when they signed) which would
character of such agent and appears acting in his own destroy the presumption of truth which a public document
name carries with it. Attorney Sevilla, who acted as the notary in the
o This means that in the case of this exception the agent's execution of this instrument, testifying as a witness in the case,
apparent representation yields to the principal's true said that he never verified any document without first inquiring
representation and that, in reality and in effect, the whether the parties knew its content.
contract must be considered as entered into between the  Our conclusion is that this casco was lawfully sold to the
principal and the third person; and, consequently, if the defendant by the plaintiffs.
obligations belong to the former, to him alone must also  (Fun fact: This casco had been leased and was sunk while in
belong the rights arising from the contract. the lessee’s hands before the complaint in this case was filed.
 The money with which the launch was bough having come from As such, the issue of ownership is determinative of who may
the plaintiff, the exception established in article 1717 is enforce the responsibility of damages for losses on the lessee.)
applicable to the instant case.