Naguiat v CA (Short title)
GR # 118375 | October 3, 2003
Petitioner: Celestina T. Naguiat
Respondent: Court of Appeals and Aurora Queao
(Rule 130, Section 29)
FACTS
1. Queao applied with Naguiat for a loan of P200K, which Naguiat
granted and indorsed to Queao a check for P95k which was earlier
issued to Naguiat by the Corporate Resources Financing
Corporation and aniother check to the order of Queao for P95K.
2. The proceeds of the checks were to constitute the loan granted.
3. To secure, Queao executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and
surrendered to the owner's duplicates of the titles. The mortgage
deed was notarized, and Queao issued to Naguiat a promissory
note for the amount of P200K with interest at 12% per annum.
4. Queao also issued a postdated check for P200K and payable to the
order of Naguiat but upon presentment, the check was dishonored
for insufficiency of funds.
5. Queao then requested Security Bank to stop payment of her
postdated check, but the bank rejected pursuant to its policy not to
honor such if the check is drawn against insufficient funds.
6. Queao received a letter from Naguiat's lawyer, demanding
settlement of the loan and Queao together with Ruebenfeldt met
with Naguiat where Queao told that she did not receive the
proceeds of the loan, because the checks were retained by
Ruebenfeldt, who purportedly was Naguiat's agent.
7. Naguiat then applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the
mortgage but 3 days before the sale, Queao filed a case before the
Pasay RTCforthe annulment of the mortgage deed.
8. RTC eventually stopped the auction sale and declared the Deed of
Real Estate Mortgage null and void, and ordered Naguiat to return
the owners duplicates of her titles to the mortgaged lots.
9. CA affirmed in toto the RTC decision.
10. Naguiat questions the findings of facts made by the CA especially
on whether Queao had actually received the loan proceeds.
11. Naguiat claims that being a notarial instrument or public document,
the mortgage deed enjoys the presumption that the recitals therein
are true and also questions the admissibility of various
representations and pronouncements of Ruebenfeldt, invoking the
rule on the non-binding effect of the admissions of third persons.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N the written representations of Rubenfeldt are admissible as
evidence
PROVISION
Rule 130
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or declaration of a
partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against
such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a
joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.
RULING & RATIO
1. Yes.
1. Ruebenfeldt was an authorized representative or agent of
Naguiat as supported by ample evidence. Ruebenfeldt was not
a stranger or an unauthorized person.
2. Naguiat instructed Ruebenfeldt to withhold from Queao the checks
she issued or indorsed to Queao.
3. Ruebenfeldt served as agent of Naguiat on the loan application of
Queao's friend and it was here that Queao came to know Naguiat.
4. It was also Ruebenfeldt who accompanied Queao in the meeting
with Naguiat and on her own, drew a check for P220K payable to
Naguiat, to cover for Queaos alleged liability.
5. There is an existence of an agency by estoppel. As a consequence
of the interaction between Naguiat and Ruebenfeldt, Queao got the
impression that Ruebenfeldt was the agent of Naguiat, but Naguiat
did nothing to correct such impression.
6. In that situation, the rule is clear that one who clothes another with
apparent authority as his agent, and holds him out to the public as
such, cannot be permitted to deny the authority of such person to
act as his agent.
7. Whatever was the true relationship between Naguiat and
Ruebenfeldt is irrelevant of the fact that the checks issued or
indorsed to Queao were never encashed or deposited.
8. There is no compelling reason to disturb the finding that the lender
did not remit and the borrower did not receive the proceeds thus,
the mortgage which is supposed to secure the loan is null and void.
for the consideration of the mortgage contract is the same as that of
the principal contract from which it receives life, and without which it
cannot exist as an independent contract.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied and the assailed decision is affirmed.
Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.