Você está na página 1de 1

Naguiat v CA (Short title) PROVISION

GR # 118375 | October 3, 2003 Rule 130

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