danon compania and rallos

8/3/2019 Danon Compania and Rallos

1/6


2/6


3/6


4/6


5/6


6/6

o Art. 1931 inapplicable: Simon Rallos knew (as can be inferred

from his pleadings) of principal

Concepcions death For Art 1931 to apply, both requirements

must be present

3) Yes, agents knowledge of principals death is material.Respondent asserts that: there is no provision in the Codewhich provides that whatever is done by an agent havingknowledge of the death of his principal is void even withrespect to third persons who may have contracted withhim in good faith and without knowledge of the death ofthe principalCourt says: this contention ignored the ignores theexistence of the general rule enunciated in Article 1919that the death of the principal extinguishes the agency.Article 1931, being an exception to the general rule, is tobe strictly construed.

4) NO, the Civil Code does not impose a duty upon the heirsto notify the agent or others of the death of the principal.y

If revocation was by the act of the principal: a generalpower which does not specify the persons to whomrepresents' on should be made, it is the generalopinion that all acts, executed with third persons whocontracted in good faith, Without knowledge of therevocation, are valid.

y BUT, if revocation was due to death of the principal:extinguishment, by operation of law, is instantaneouswithout the need for notification to the partiesconcerned.

5) No.y Laws on agency, the terms of which are clear and

unmistakable leaving no room for an interpretationcontrary to its tenor, should apply, the law providesthat death of the principal ipso jure extinguishes theauthority of the agent to sell rendering the sale to athird person in good faith unenforceable unless at theagent had no knowledge of the principals death at thattime (exception under Art. 1931)

DISPOSITION: CA Decision reversed, CFI decision affirmed. Sale

was null and void.VOTE: 1st Division.A, B, C, D concur

CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION: none

danon compania and rallos

Documents