2. Hermanos v.

Orense
G.R. No. 9188, December 4, 1914, 28 Phil 571

FACTS

Jose Duran, a nephew of Engracio Orense, sold a parcel of land with buildings and
improvements thereon owned by Orense for P1, 500 to Gutierrez Hermanos, with
Orense’s knowledge and consent, executed before a notary a public instrument. The
said public instrument contained a provision giving Duran the right to repurchase it for
the same price within a period of four years from the date of the said instrument. Orense,
however, continued occupying the land by virtue of a contract of lease. After the lapse
of four years, Gutierrez asked Orense to deliver the property to the company and to pay
rentals for the use of the property but Orense refused to do so claiming that the sale
was void because it was done without his authority and that he did not authorize his
nephew to enter into such contract. Hermanos filed a case for estafa against Duran
wherein Orense testified, as a witness, that he had consented to his nephew Duran's
selling the property under right of repurchase to Gutierrez Hermanos,

ISSUE
Whether or not Orense is bound by Duran’s act of selling the property.

HELD
Yes, Orense is bound by Duran’s act of selling the property.

Article 1259 of the Civil Code prescribes: "No one can contract in the name of another
without being authorized by him or without his legal representation according to law.

A contract executed in the name of another by one who has neither his
authorization nor legal representation shall be void, unless it should be ratified by
the person in whose name it was executed before being revoked by the other
contracting party.

The sworn statement made by Orense, while testifying as a witness at the trial of Duran
for estafa, virtually confirms and ratifies the sale of his property effected by his nephew,
Duran, and, pursuant to article 1313 of the Civil Code, remedies all defects which the
contract may have contained from the moment of its execution.

The sale of the said property made by Duran to Gutierrez Hermanos was indeed null
and void in the beginning, but afterwards became perfectly valid and cured of the defect
of nullity it bore at its execution by the confirmation solemnly made by the said owner
upon his stating under oath to the judge that he himself consented to his nephew Jose
Duran's making the said sale. Moreover, pursuant to article 1309 of the Code, the right
of action for nullification that could have been brought became legally extinguished from
the moment the contract was validly confirmed and ratified, and, in the present case, it
is unquestionable that the defendant did confirm the said contract of sale and consent
to its execution.

The repeated and successive statements made by Orense in two actions, wherein he
affirmed that he had given his consent to the sale of his property, meet the requirements
of the law and legally excuse the lack of written authority, and, as they are a full
ratification of the acts executed by his nephew Jose Duran, they produce the effects of
an express power of agency.

It having been proven at the trial that Orense gave his consent to the said sale, it follows
that the defendant conferred verbal, or at least implied, power of agency upon his
nephew Duran, who accepted it in the same way by selling the said property. The
principal must therefore fulfill all the obligations contracted by the agent, who acted
within the scope of his authority.

57. Balila v. IAC

G.R. No. L-68477, October 29, 1987, 155 SCRA 262

FACTS

103. Cuaycong v. Cuaycong

G.R. No. L-21616, December 11, 1967, 21 SCRA 1192

148. Eastern Shipping Lines v. IAC

150 SCRA 463

M/S ASIATICA, a vessel operated by petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., loaded at
Kobe, Japan for transportation to Manila, 5,000 pieces of calorized lance pipes in 28
packages consigned to Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and 7 cases of spare parts,
consigned to Central Textile Mills, Inc.; both sets of goods were insured against marine
risk for their stated value with respondent Development Insurance and Surety
Corporation.

The same vessel took on board 128 cartons of garment fabrics and accessories, in two
(2) containers, consigned to Mariveles Apparel Corporation and insured by Nisshin Fire
& Marine Insurance Co., and two cases of surveying instruments consigned to Aman
Enterprises and General Merchandise and insured by Dowa Fire & Marine Insurance
Co., Ltd.

Enroute for Kobe, Japan, to Manila, the vessel caught fire and sank, resulting in the
total loss of ship and cargo.

The insurers, having paid the corresponding marine insurance values and were thus
subrogated to the rights of the insured, filed a suit against the petitioner carrier for
recovery of the amounts paid to the insured. However, petitioner contends that it is not
liable on the ground that the loss was due to an extraordinary fortuitous event.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Civil Code provisions on Common Carriers or the Carriage of the
Goods by Sea Act will govern the case at bar.

RULING
The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the liability of
common carrier in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration. The liability of
petitioner is governed primarily by the Civil Code however, in all matters not regulated
by the Civil Code, the Code of Commerce and Special Laws will govern with respect to
the rights and obligations of the carrier. Therefore COGSA is suppletory to the provisions
of the Civil Code.

Article 1735 of the Civil Code provides that all cases than those mention in Article 1734,
the common carrier shall be presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary diligence required by
law. The burden is upon Eastern Shipping Lines to prove that it has exercised
the extraordinary diligence required by law.

In the case, fire may not be considered a natural disaster or calamity. This must be so
as it arises almost invariably from some act of man or by human means; It does not fall
within the category of an act of God unless caused by lightning or by other natural
disaster or calamity; It may even be caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier.

There was "actual fault" of the carrier shown by "lack of diligence" in that "when the
smoke was noticed, the fire was already big; that the fire must have started twenty-four
(24) hours before the same was noticed; " and that "after the cargoes were stored in the
hatches, no regular inspection was made as to their condition during the voyage."

Having failed to discharge the burden of proving that it had exercised the extraordinary
diligence required by law, Eastern Shipping Lines cannot escape liability for the loss of
the cargo.