Nepomuceno v Heredia

No. 3298, 27 February 1907

Nature: Appeal from a judgement of the CFI of Manila
Ponente: CARSON, J.
FACTS:
Defendant Gerardo Heredia is the business adviser of co-petitioner Marciana
Canon, and as such had in his hands P1,500 paid to him on her account on 22
September 1904. At about the same time petitioner Felisa Nepomuceno had
an unsecured debt due her of 500 pesos from one Marcelo Leao and that on
demand for security Leao proposed to give her a deed of conditional sale to
a certain tract of land, together with the buildings and imprisonments thereon
for P2,000 with Nepomuceno to be credited with 500 pesos and to advance
the balance of 1,500 pesos.

Nepomuceno, knowing that Heredia had in his hands P1,500, she proposed to
Canon that they make a joint investment on the land; that together Canon
and Nepomuceno discussed the proposition with Heredia and later directed
him to draw up the necessary documents and on 24 September 1904, a deed
of conditional sale of the land was executed with the vendor reserving the
privilege of repurchasing the land at the end of one year and obligating
himself to make monthly payments to maintain the right to retain the land.

The deed was placed under the name of Heredia and a few days after upon
the request of the plaintiffs, a formal memorandum was executed before a
notary public stating the fact that the plaintiffs had furnished the money, the
amount furnished by each and their proportionate interest in the investment.

More than a year after the transactions had been consummated, a recovery
of possession by third parties was instituted hence the petitioners brought
the action to recover from the defendant the whole amount of the money
invested with interest from the date of investment. Petitioners allege that the
purchase of the land was not made in accordance with their instructions, or
on their account. The lower courts judgment was in favor of plaintiffs hence
this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant Heredia acted within the scope of his authority
HELD: Yes.
RATIO:

The Supreme Court held that the defendant was acting merely as the agent
for the plaintiffs throughout the entire transaction; that the purchase of the
land was made not only with their full knowledge and consent, but at their
suggestion.
That after the purchase had been effected, the plaintiffs, with full knowledge
of the facts, approved and ratified the actions of their agent in the premises.
The defendant exercised reasonable care and diligence in the performance of

his duty as agent and that undertaking to guarantee the vendors title to the
land purchased was by the direction of the plaintiffs. Hence, judgment of
Lower court is reversed.