notice binding on the principal, even when in fact the principal never became awarethereof. Air France v. Court of Appeals, 126 SCRA 448 (18!".e. Personal, Fiduciary and Revocable#herelation$ofanagenttohi$principal are%d&ciar'andinregardtothepropert'forming the $&b(ect matter of the agenc', he i$ e$topped from ac)&iring or a$$erting a titleadver$e to that of the principal.Severino v. Severino, 44 *hil. !4! (12!".+' rea$on of the personal, representative and derivative nat&re of agenc', agenc' i$e,ting&i$hed b' the death of the principal or agent. Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons RealtyCorp., 81 SCRA 2-1 (1.8".A contract of agenc' i$ generall' revocable a$ it i$ a per$onal contract of repre$entationba$ed on tr&$t and con%dence repo$ed b' the principal on hi$ agent. A$ the power of theagent to act depend$ on the will and licen$e of the principal he repre$ent$, the power oftheagent cea$e$ whenthe will or permi$$ion i$ withdrawn b' theprincipal. Thus,generally, the agency may e revo!ed y the principal at "ill.Repulic v. #vangelista, 466SCRA -44 (2//-".0n an agenc', the principal1$ per$onalit' i$ e,tended thro&gh the facilit' of the agent2the agent, b' legal %ction, become$ the principal, a&thori3ed to perform all act$ which thelatter wo&ld have him do. S&ch a relation$hip can onl' be e4ected with the con$ent of theprincipal, which m&$t not, in an' wa', becompelledb' lawor b' an' co&rt. #heAgreement it$elf between the partie$ $tate$ that 5either part' ma' terminate theAgreement witho&t ca&$e b' giving the other !/ da'$1 notice b' letter, telegram or cable.6Orient Air Services v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 645 (1991).15. is!in"uis#ed $ro% &!#er Si%ilar Con!rac!s'a. Fro% (%)loy%en! Con!rac!#he relation$hip between the corporation which own$ and operate$ a theatre, and theindivid&al it hire$ a$ a $ec&rit' g&ard to maintain the peace and order at the entrance ofthe theatre i$ not that of principal and agent, beca&$e the principle of repre$entation wa$innowa' involved.#he$ec&rit' g&ard wa$not emplo'ed torepre$entthe defendantcorporation in it$ dealing$ with third partie$7 he wa$ a mere emplo'ee hired to perform acertain$peci%cd&t'orta$8, thatofactinga$$pecial g&ardand$ta'ingatthemainentranceof themovieho&$eto$topgatecra$her$andtomaintainpeaceandorderwithin the premi$e$.$ela Cru% v. &orthern Theatrical #nterprises, - *hil .! (1-4".+&t to $et the record $traight, the concept of a $ingle per$on having the d&al role ofagentandemplo'eewhiledoingthe$ameta$8i$anovel oneino&r(&ri$pr&dence,which m&$t be viewed with ca&tion e$peciall' when it i$ devoid o$ any *uris)ruden!ialsu))or! or )receden!. All the$e, read witho&t an' clear &nder$tanding of %ne legaldi$tinction$, appear to $pea8 of control b' the in$&rance compan' over it$ agent$. #he'are, however, control$ aimed onl' at $peci%c re$&lt$ in &nderta8ing an in$&rance agenc',andare, infact, parameter$ $et b' lawinde%ninganin$&ranceagenc' andtheattendant d&tie$ and re$pon$ibilitie$ an in$&rance agent m&$t ob$erve and &nderta8e.#he' do not reach the level of control into the mean$ and manner of doing an a$$ignedta$8 that invariabl' characteri3e$ an emplo'ment relation$hip a$ de%ned b' labor law.1Litonjua, Jr. v. Eternit Corp., 490 SCRA 204 (2006).Tongko v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc., 64+ SCRA ,95(-+11).b. Fro% Con!rac! $or a Piece.o$./or0#a8ing into con$ideration the fact$ that the operator owed hi$ po$ition to the compan'and the latter co&ld remove him or terminate hi$ $ervice$ at will7 that the $ervice $tationbelonged to the compan' and bore it$ tradename and the operator $old onl' the prod&ct$of the compan'7 that the e)&ipment &$ed b' the operator belonged to the compan' andwere(&$t loanedtotheoperator andthecompan'too8chargeof their repair andmaintenance7 that an emplo'ee of the compan' $&pervi$ed the operator and cond&ctedperiodic in$pection of the compan'9$ ga$oline and $ervice $tation7 that the price of theprod&ct$ $old b' the operator wa$ %,ed b' the compan' and not b' the operator7 andthat he wa$ a mere agent, the %nding of the Co&rt of Appeal$ that the operator wa$ anagent of the compan' and not an independent contractor $ho&ld not be di$t&rbed. Shellv. Firemen's (ns. Co., 1// *hil .-. (1-.".c. Fro% 1ro0er #he )&e$tion a$ to what con$tit&te$ a $ale $o a$ to entitle a real e$tate bro8er to hi$commi$$ion$ i$ e,ten$ivel' annotated in the ca$e of )unney vs. *ealey (:ebra$8a" . . . 44;aw Rep. Ann. -! 5#heb&$ine$$of areal e$tatebro8er or agent, generall', i$onl'to%ndap&rcha$er, andthe$ettledr&lea$$tatedb'theco&rt$i$that, intheab$enceof ane,pre$$ contract between bro8er and hi$ principal, the implication generall' i$ that thebro8er become$ entitled to the &$&al commi$$ion$ whenever he bring$ to hi$ principal apart' who i$ able and willing to ta8e the propert' and enter into a valid contract &pon theterm$ then named b' the principal, altho&gh the partic&lar$ ma' be arranged and thematter negotiatedandcompletedbetweentheprincipal andthep&rcha$er directl'.6+acondray & Co. v. Sellner, !! *hil. !./ (116".5#hed&tie$andliabilit'ofabro8ertohi$emplo'eraree$$entiall'tho$ewhichanagent owe$ to hi$ principal. Con$e)&entl', the deci$ive legal provi$ion$ on determiningwhether a bro8er i$ mandated to give to the emplo'er the propina or gift received fromthe b&'er wo&ld be Article$ 181 and 1/ of the Civil Code.6 (?et the fact$ did indicateclearl' that the real e$tate bro8er wa$ appointed a$ an e,cl&$ive agent." o!ingo v.o!ingo, 4- SCRA 1,1 (1971).@here the p&rported agent wa$ orall' given a&thorit' to 5follow &p6 the p&rcha$e ofthe %re tr&c8 with the m&nicipalgovernment, there i$ no a&thorit' to $ellnor ha$ thep&rported agent been empowered to ma8e a $ale for and in behalf of the $eller.Guardexv. &)RC, 11 SCRA 48. (1/".@hentheterm$oftheagenc'arrangementi$tothee4ectthatentitlementtothecommi$$ion wa$ contingent on the p&rcha$e b' a c&$tomer of a %re tr&c8, the implicitconditionbeingthat theagentwo&ldearnthecommi$$ionif hewa$in$tr&mental inbringing the $ale abo&t. Since the agent had nothing to do with the $ale of the %re tr&c8,and i$ not therefore entitled to an' commi$$ion at all. Guardex v. &)RC, 11 SCRA 48.(1/".A ro!eri$ one who i$ engaged,forother$,on a commi$$ion,negotiating contract$relative to propert' with the c&$tod' of which he ha$ no concern7 the negotiator betweenthe other partie$, never acting in hi$ own name b&t in the name of tho$e who emplo'edhim. Ai$occ&pationi$toringthepartiestogether, inmatterof trade, commerceornavigation.Sch!i" an" O#erl$, Inc. v. %&L Martine', 166 SCRA 49, (1922).Anagent receive$ a commi$$ion &pon the $&cce$$f&l concl&$ion of a $ale. Bn the other hand,a ro!erearn$ hi$ pa' merely y ringing the uyer and the seller together, even if no$ale i$ event&all' made.Tan v. (ullas, ,9, SCRA ,,4 (-++-).0nrelationthereto, wehaveheldthat theterm5proc&ringca&$e6inde$cribingabro8er1$ activit', refer$ to a ca&$e originating a $erie$ of event$ which, witho&t brea8 intheir contin&it', re$&lt in the accompli$hment of the prime ob(ective of the emplo'mentof the bro8er2prod&cing a p&rcha$er read', willing and able to b&' on the owner1$ term$.#o be regarded a$ the 5proc&ring ca&$e6 of a $ale a$ to be entitled to a commi$$ion, abro8er1$ e4ort$ m&$t have been the fo&ndation on which the negotiation$ re$&lting in a$ale began. Me"rano v. Court of Appeals, 45- SCRA 77 (-++5).2A reale$tate bro8er i$ one who negotiate$ the $ale of realpropertie$. Ai$ b&$ine$$,generall' $pea8ing, i$ onl' to %nd a p&rcha$er who i$ willing to b&' the land &pon term$%,ed b' the owner. Ae ha$ no a&thorit' to bind the principal b' $igning a contract of $ale.0ndeed, an a&thorit' to %nd a p&rcha$er of real propert' doe$ not incl&de an a&thorit' to$ell. Liton)ua, &r. v. *ternit Corp., 49+ SCRA -+4 (-++6).Since bro8erage relation$hip i$ nece$$ar' a contract for the emplo'ment of an agent,principle$ of contract law al$o govern the bro8erCprincipal relation$hip. xAacus SecuritiesCorp. v. Ampil, 48! SCRA !1- (2//6".Contrar' tothe appellateco&rt9$ concl&$ion,thi$ arrangement$how$anagenc'.Anagent receive$ a commi$$ion &pon the $&cce$$f&l concl&$ion of a $ale. Bn the other hand,a bro8er earn$ hi$ pa' merel' b' bringing the b&'er and the $eller together, even if no$ale i$ event&all' made. (,iter - the issue "as "hether it "as an independentdistriutorof .+/carsinthe0hilippines"x*ahnv. Courtof Appeals, 266SCRA-!.(1.".d. Fro% Sale@hen the term$ of the agreement compel$ the p&rported agent to pa' for the prod&ct$received from the p&rported principal within the $tip&lated period, even when there ha$been no $ale thereof to the p&blic, the &nderl'ing relation$hip i$ not one of contract ofagenc' to $ell, b&t one of act&al $ale. A real agent doe$ not a$$&me per$onalre$pon$ibilit' for the pa'ment of the price of the ob(ect of the agenc'7 hi$ obligation i$merel' to t&rnCover to the principal the proceed$ of the $ale once he receive$ them fromthe b&'er. Con$e)&entl', $ince the &nderl'ing agreement i$ not an agenc' agreement, itcannot be revo8ed e,cept for ca&$e.1uiroga v. 0arsons, !8 *hil -/2 (118".@hen &nder the agreement the p&rported agent become$ re$pon$ible for an' change$in the ac)&i$ition co$t of the ob(ect he ha$ been a&thori3ed to p&rcha$e from a $&pplier inthe Dnited State$, the &nderl'ing agreement i$ not an contract of agenc' to b&', $ince atr&e agent doe$ not bear an' ri$8 relating to the $&b(ect matter or the price. +eing acontract of $aleandnot agenc', an'pro%t$ reali3edb'thep&rportedagent fromdi$co&nt$ receivedfromtheAmerican$&pplier pertainedtoit withnoobligationtoacco&nt for it, m&ch le$$ to t&rn it over, to the p&rported principal.Gon%alo 0uyat v. Arco,.2 *hil. 4/2 (141".2Reiterated in 0hil. *ealth2care 0roviders 3+axicare4 v. #strada, -42 SCRA 616 (2//8". #hedi$tinction$betweena$aleandanagenc'arenotdiEc&lttodi$cernandthi$Co&rt, a$ earl' a$ 1./, had alread' form&lated the g&ideline$ that wo&ld aid indi4erentiating the two (2" contract$. < that the primordial di4erentiating con$iderationbetweenthetwo(2" contract$i$thetran$ferof owner$hiportitleoverthepropert'$&b(ect of the contract. 0n an agenc', the principal retain$ owner$hip and control over thepropert' and the agent merel' act$ on the principal9$ behalf and &nder hi$ in$tr&ction$ inf&rtherance of the ob(ective$ for which the agenc' wa$ e$tabli$hed. Bn the other hand,the contract i$ clearl' a $ale if the partie$ intended that the deliver' of the propert' wille4ect a relin)&i$hment of title, control and owner$hip in $&ch a wa' that the recipientma' do with the propert' a$ he plea$e$. Spouses 5iloria v. Continental Airlines, (nc., F.R.:o. 188288.16 Gan&ar'2/12.33. F&R4S A5 635S &F A7(5C8 1. 9o: A"ency 4ay 1e Cons!i!u!ed (Ar!. 1269)#hereare$omeprovi$ion$of lawwhichre)&irecertainformalitie$for partic&larcontract$= the%r$ti$whentheformi$re)&iredforthevalidit'of thecontract7 the$econd i$ when it i$ re)&ired to ma8e the contract e4ective a$ again$t third partie$7 andthe third i$ when the form i$ re)&ired for the p&rpo$e of proving the e,i$tence of thecontract. A contract of agenc' to $ell on commi$$ion ba$i$ doe$ not belong to an' ofthe$e three categorie$, hence it i$ valid and enforceable in whatever form in ma' beenteredinto. Con$e)&entl', whentheagent $ign$her $ignat&reonan'faceof thereceipt $howing that $he receive$ the (ewelr' for her to $ell on commi$$ion, $he i$ bo&ndto the obligation$ of an agent. #he e,act po$ition of the agent1$ $ignat&re in the receipt(in thi$ ca$e near the de$cription of the good$ and not on top of her printed name" i$immaterial. )im v. Court of Appeals, 2-4 SCRA 1./ (16".a. Fro% Side o$ !#e Princi)al (Ar!. 1269)@hen the b&'er$Ca2retrofailed for $everal'ear$ to clear their title to the propert'p&rcha$ed and allowed the $ellerCa2retroto remain in po$$e$$ion in $pite of thee,pirationof theperiodof redemption, thenthee,ec&tionof thememorand&mofrep&rcha$e b' the b&'er$1 $onCinClaw, which $tood &nrep&diated for man' 'ear$,con$tit&ted an implied agenc' &nder Article 186 of the Civil Code, from their $ilence orlac8 of action, or their fail&re to rep&diate the agenc'.Conde v. Court of Appeals, 11SCRA 24- (182".@here the principal ha$ ac)&ie$ced in the act of hi$ agent for a long period of time,and ha$ received and appropriated to hi$ own &$e the bene%t$ re$&lt in from the act$ ofhi$ agent, co&rt$ $ho&ld be $low in declaring the act$ of the agent n&ll and void.)inan v.0uno, !1 *hil. 2- (11-".b. Fro% Side o$ !#e A"en! (Ar!s. 127+, 1271 and 127-)c. Fro% Side o$ ;#ird Par!iesniversal A"encyAn agent may be (1) universal; (2) general, or () s!e"ial. A universal agent is one aut#ori$e% to %o all a"ts&or #is !rin"i!al'#i"# "an la'&ully be %elegate% to an agent. So &ar as su"# a "on%ition is !ossible, su"# anagent may be sai% to #ave universal aut#ority. A general agent is one aut#ori$e% to %o all a"ts !ertaining to abusiness o& a "ertain (in% or at a !arti"ular !la"e, or all a"ts !ertaining to a business o& a !arti"ular "lass orseries. )e #as usually aut#ority eit#er e*!ressly "on&erre% in generalterms or in e&&e"t ma%e generalby t#eusages, "ustomsornatureo& t#ebusiness'#i"# #e is aut#ori$e%totransa"t.An agent, t#ere&ore,'#o isem!o'ere% to transa"t all t#e business o& #is !rin"i!al o& a !arti"ular (in% or in a !arti"ular !la"e, 'oul% &or t#isreason, be or%inarily %eeme% a general agent. A special agent is one aut#ori$e% to %o some !arti"ular a"t or toa"t u!on some !arti"ular o""asion. )e a"ts usually in a""or%an"e 'it# s!e"i&i" instru"tions or un%er limitationsne"essarily im!lie% &rom t#e nature o& t#e a"t to be %one.Siasat v. IAC, 19 SCRA 2+ (19+,).(-) S)ecial or Par!icular A"ency#herightof anagent toindor$ecommercial paper (chec8$" i$aver're$pon$iblepower andwill not belightl'inferred. A$ale$manwitha&thorit'tocollect mone'belonging to hi$ principal doe$ not have the implied a&thorit' to indor$e chec8$ receivedin pa'ment. An' per$on ta8ing chec8$ made pa'able to a corporation which can act onl'b'agent$doe$$oathi$peril, andm&$tabideb'thecon$e)&enceiftheagentwhoindor$e$ the $ame i$ witho&t a&thorit'. (nsular $rug v. 0&., -8 *hil. 684 (1!!".b. /#e!#er 3! Covers ?e"al 4a!!ers(1) A!!orney.a!.?a:Bnl' the emplo'ee, not hi$ co&n$el, can imp&gn the con$ideration of the compromi$ea$ being &ncon$cionable. #he relation of attorne' and client i$ in man' re$pect$ one ofagenc', and the general r&le$ of agenc' appl' to $&ch relation2the circ&m$tance$ ofthi$ ca$e indicate that the emplo'ee1$ co&n$el acted be'ond the $cope of hi$ a&thorit'in )&e$tioning the compromi$e agreement. #hat a client ha$ &ndo&btedl' the right tocompromi$e a $&it witho&t the intervention of hi$ law'er cannot be gain$aid, the onl')&ali%cation being that if $&ch compromi$e i$ entered into with the intent of defra&dingthe law'er of the fee$ (&$tl' d&e him, the compromi$e m&$t be $&b(ect to the $aid fee$.820hil +arine, (nc. v. &)RC, -61 SCRA 6.- (2//8".Anattorne'cannot, witho&t aclient1$a&thori3ation, $ettletheactionor $&b(ectmatter of the litigation even when he believe$ that $&ch a $ettlement will be$t $erve hi$client1$ intere$t.0hilippine Aluminum /heels, (nc. v. FASG( #nterprises, (nc., !42 SCRA.22 (2///". (-) A!!orney.in.Fac!#he relation$hip of attorne' and client i$ in man' re$pect$ one of agenc', and thegeneral r&le$ of agenc' appl' to $&ch relation. #he act$ of an agent are deemed the act$of the principal onl' if the agent act$ within the $cope of hi$ a&thorit'. #h&$, when thelaw'er %le$ an oppo$ition to the compromi$e agreement that ha$ been validl' enteredinto b' hi$ client, he i$ acting be'ond the $cope of hi$ a&thorit'. T820hil. +arine, (nc. v.&)RC, -61 SCRA 6.- (2//84.c. /#e!#er3!CoversAc!so$ Ad%inis!ra!ionorAc!so$ o%inion' @Po,ersofAttorne$A(1) For% o$ Po:ers o$ A!!orney0naca$einvolvinga&thorit'toact inbarangga'conciliationca$e$coveringane(ectment for fail&re to pa' rental$= 5A power of attorne' i$ an in$tr&ment in writing b'which one per$on, a$ principal, appoint$ another a$ hi$ agent and confer$ &pon him thea&thorit' to perform certain $peci%ed act$ or 8ind$ of act$ on behalf of the principal. #hewritten a&thori3ation it$elf i$ the power of attorne', and thi$ i$ clearl' indicated b' thefact that it ha$ al$o been called a 5letter of attorne'.6/ee v. $e Castro, -62 SCRA 6-,.12 (2//8".#he;etter datedGan&ar'16, 16relied&ponb'thepetitioner$wa$$ignedb're$pondent Hernande3 alone, witho&t an' a&thorit' from the re$pondent$Cowner$. #herei$ noact&ationof re$pondent Hernande3 inconnectionwithher dealing$ withthepetitioner$. A$$&ch, $aidletter i$notbindingonthere$pondent$a$owner$of the$&b(ect propertie$. Liton)ua v. -ernan"e', 4-7 SCRA 472 (-++4).(-) 7eneral Po:er o$ A!!orney (Ar!. 1277)A power of attorne' i$an instrument in "ritingb' which one per$on, a$ principal,appoint$ another a$ hi$ agent and confer$ &pon hi$ the a&thorit' to perform certain act$or 8ind$ of act$ on behalf of the principal. /ee v. $e Castro, -62 SCRA 6- (2//8".:onethele$$, we$tre$$thatthepowerof admini$trationdoe$notincl&deact$ofdi$po$ition or enc&mbrance, which are act$ of $trict owner$hip. A$ $&ch, an a&thorit' todi$po$ecannotproceedfromana&thorit'toadmini$ter, andvicever$a, forthetwopower$ ma' onl' be e,erci$ed b' an agent b' following the provi$ion$ on agenc' of theCivil Code (from Article 18.6 to Article 18.8".Agga#ao v. Parulan &r., 6-9 SCRA56- (-+1+).(,) S)ecial Po:er o$ A!!orneyKven if a doc&ment i$ de$ignated a$ a general power of attorne', the re)&irement ofa$pecial power of attorne'i$ met if therei$ aclear mandatefromtheprincipal$peci%call' a&thori3ing the performance of the act.#state of )ino ,la6uer v. ,ng9oco,-6! SCRA !.! (2//8".0t i$ a general r&le that a power of attorne' m&$t be $trictl' con$tr&ed7 thein$tr&ment will be held to grant onl' tho$e power$ that are $peci%ed, and the agent ma'neither go be'ond nor deviate from the power of attorne'.,laguer v. 0urugganan, 8r.,-1- SCRA 46/ (2//.".Alt#oug# a -S!e"ial .o'er o& Attorney/ 'as issue% by t#e insuran"e "om!any to its agen"y manager, it'or%ings s#o' t#at it soug#t only to establis# an agen"y t#at "om!rises all t#e business o& t#e !rin"i!al 'it#int#e %esignate% lo"ality, but "ou"#e% in general terms, an% "onse0uently 'as limite% only to a"ts o&a%ministration. A general !o'er !ermits t#e agent to %o all a"ts &or '#i"# t#e la' %oes not re0uire a s!e"ial!o'er. 1#us, t#e a"ts enumerate% in or similar to t#ose enumerate% in t#e -S!e"ial .o'er o& Attorney/ (i.e.,really a general !o'er o& attorney) %i% not re0uire a s!e"ial !o'er o& attorney, an% "oul% only "over a"ts o&a%ministration. Dominion Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 376 SCRA 239 (2002).Kvenwhenthetitlegiventoadeedi$a$a5Feneral *owerofAttorne',6b&tit$operative cla&$e contain$ an a&thorit' to $ell, it con$tit&ted the re)&i$ite $pecial powerof attorne' to $ell a piece of land. 5#h&$, there wa$ no need to e,ec&te a $eparate and$pecial power of attorne' $ince the general power of attorne' had e,pre$$l' a&thori3edthe agent or attorne' in fact the power to $ell the $&b(ect propert'. #he $pecial power ofattorne' can be incl&ded in the general power when it i$ $peci%ed therein the act ortran$action for which the $pecialpower i$ re)&ired.6 .eloso v. Court of Appeals,-6+ SCRA 59, (1996).@hen an agent ha$ been given general control and management of the b&$ine$$, hei$deemedtohavepower toemplo'$&chagent$andemplo'ee$a$are&$&al andnece$$ar' in the cond&ct of the b&$ine$$, and need$ no $pecial power of attorne' for$&ch p&rpo$e. :u Chuc! v. ;7ong )i 0o,6 46 *hil. 6/8 (124". An attorne'CinCfact empowered to pa' the debt$ of the principal and to emplo' legalco&n$eltodefend theprincipal1$ intere$t, ha$ certainl' theimpliedpower topa'onbehalf of the principal the attorne'1$ fee$ charged b' the law'er.+unicipal Council of(loilo v. #vangelista, -- *hil. 2/ (1!/".A coCowner who i$ made an attorne'CinCfact, with the $ame power and a&thorit' todeal with the propert' which the principal might or co&ld have had if per$onall' pre$ent,ma'adoptthe&$&al legal mean$toaccompli$htheob(ect, incl&dingacceptanceof$ervice and engaging of legal co&n$el to pre$erve the owner$hip and po$$e$$ion of theprincipal1$ propert'. Government of 0( v. /agner, -4 *hil. 1!2 (12".Contract$ of agenc', a$ well a$ a general power of attorne', m&$t be interpreted inaccordance with the lang&age &$ed b' the partie$. #he real intention of the partie$ i$primaril' to be determined from the lang&age &$ed. #he intention i$ to be gathered fromthe whole in$tr&ment. 0n ca$e of do&bt, re$ort m&$t be had to the $it&ation,$&rro&nding$, and relation$ of the partie$. @henever it i$ po$$ible, e4ect i$ to be givento ever' word or cla&$e &$ed b' the partie$. 0t i$ to be pre$&med that the partie$ $aidwhat the' intended to $a' and that the' &$ed each word or cla&$e with $ole p&rpo$e,and that p&rpo$e i$, if po$$ible, to be a$certained and enforced. 0f the contract be opento two con$tr&ction$, one of which wo&ld while the other wo&ld overthrow it, the formeri$ to be cho$en. 0f b' one con$tr&ction the contract wo&ld be illegal, and b' anothere)&all' permi$$ible con$tr&ction wo&ld be lawf&l, the latter m&$t be adopted. #he act$of the partie$ will be pre$&med to be done in conformit' with and not contrar' to theintent of the contract. #he meaning of general word$ m&$t be con$tr&ed with referenceto the $peci%c ob(ect to be accompli$hed and limited b' the recital$ made in referenceto $&ch ob(ect. )inan v. 0uno, !1 *hil. 2- (11-".(4) (B)ress Po:er o$ A!!orney (Bcludes Po:ers o$ Ad%inis!ra!ion (e.g.,7eneral Po:er o$ A!!orney)#hein$tr&mentwhichgrant$totheagentthepower5#ofollowC&p, a$8, demand,collect and receipt for m' bene%t indemnitie$ or $&m d&e me relative to the $in8ing ofL.M. :KLBS in the vicinit' of Kl Gadida, Ca$ablanca, Lorocco on the evening of Hebr&ar'1., 186,6 i$ a $pecial power of attorne', e,cl&de$ an' intent to grant a general powerof attorne' or to con$tit&te a &niver$al agenc'. +eing $pecial power$ of attorne', the'm&$t be$trictl' con$tr&ed. #hein$tr&ment cannot bereadto givepower to theattorne'CinCfact 5to obtain, receive, receipt from6 the in$&rance compan' the proceed$ari$ing from the death of the $eamanCin$&red, e$peciall' when the commercial practicefor gro&p in$&rance of thi$ nat&re i$ that it i$ the emplo'erCpolic'holder who too8 o&tthe polic' who i$ empowered to collect the proceed$ on behalf of the covered in$&red ortheir bene%ciarie$. Pine"a v. Court of Appeals, --6 SCRA 754 (199,).d. Cases /#ere S)ecial Po:ers o$ A!!orney Are 5ecessary (Ar!. 1272)(1) ;o 4a0e Pay%en!s @As Are /ot 0suall$ Consi"ere" as Acts ofA"!inistrationA2n t#e "ase o& t#e area manager o& an insuran"e "om!any, it 'as #el% t#at t#e !ayment o& "laims is not ana"t o& a%ministration, an% t#at sin"e t#e settlement o& "laims 'as not in"lu%e% among t#e a"ts enumerate% int#e S!e"ial.o'ero& Attorney issue% by t#e insuran"e "om!any, nor iso& a "#ara"ter similar to t#e a"tsenumerate% t#erein, t#en a s!e"ial !o'er o& attorney 'as re0uire% be&ore su"# area manager "oul% settle t#einsuran"e "laims o& t#e insure%. Conse0uently, t#e amounts !ai% by t#e area manager to settle su"# "laims"annot bereimburse%&romt#e!rin"i!al insuran"e"om!any.DominionInsuranceCorp. v.Court ofAppeals, 376 SCRA 239 (2002).(-) ;o (Cec! 5ova!ions /#ic# Pu! an (nd !o &bli"a!ions Already in (Bis!encea! !#e ;i%e !#e A"ency /as Cons!i!u!ed(,) ;oCo%)ro%ise, ;oSub%i! Dues!ions!oArbi!ra!ion, ;oRenounce!#eRi"#! !o A))eal $ro% a Eud"%en!, ;o /aive &b*ec!ions !o !#e Fenue o$ anAc!ion, or ;o Abandon a Prescri)!ion Already AcGuired;#e )o:er !o co%)ro%ise eBcludes !#e )o:er !o sub%i! !o arbi!ra!ion.3! :ould alsobe reasonable !o conclude !#a! !#e)o:er !o sub%i! !oarbi!ra!ion does no! carry :i!# i! !#e )o:er !o co%)ro%ise. (Ar!. 122+"@hen an agent ha$ been empowered to $ell hemp in a foreign co&ntr', that e,pre$$power carrie$ with it the implied power to ma8e and enter into the &$&al andc&$tomar'contract for it$$ale, which$alecontract ma'providefor $ettlement ofi$$&e$b' arbitration. 5@eare clearl'of theopinion that the contractin)&e$tioni$valid and binding &pon the defendant NprincipalO, and that a&thorit' to ma8e and enterintoit for andonbehalf of thedefendant NprincipalO, b&t a$amatter of fact thecontract wa$ legall' rati%ed and approved b' the $&b$e)&ent act$ and cond&ct$ of thedefendant NprincipalO.6 Roinson Fleming v. Cru%, 4 *hil 42 (126".#r&e, $aid co&n$el a$$erted that he had verbal a&thorit' to compromi$e the ca$e.#he R&le$, however, re)&ire, for attorne'$ to compromi$e the litigation of their client$,a 5$pecial a&thorit'6 (Section 2!, R&le 1!8, R&le$ of Co&rt". And while the $ame doe$not $tate that the $pecial a&thorit' be in writing, the co&rt ha$ ever' rea$on to e,pect,that, if not in writing, the $ame be d&l' e$tabli$hed b' evidence other than the $elfC$erving a$$ertion of co&n$el him$elf that $&ch a&thorit' wa$ verball' given to him. Hor,a&thorit' to compromi$e cannot lightl' be pre$&med. 1o!e Insurance Co. v. 0SL,-1 SCRA 26, (1967).,ld Civil Code= #he power to bring $&it in order to collect $&m$ of mone' accr&ing inthe ordinar' co&r$e of b&$ine$$ 5a$ properl' belonging to the cla$$ of act$ de$cribed inarticle1.1!of theCivil Codea$act$of P$trict owner$hip1. 0t $eem$rather tobe$omething which i$ nece$$aril' a part of the mere admini$tration of $&ch a b&$ine$$ a$that de$cribed in the in$tr&ment in )&e$tion and onl' incidentall', if at all, involving apower to di$po$e of the title to propert'.6 N0n an' event, the provi$ion to 5e,act thepa'ment of $&m$ of mone' 5b' legal mean$6 wa$ con$tr&ed to be e,pre$$ power to$&e.OGermann v. $onaldson, 1 *hil 6! (1/1".(4) ;o /aive Any &bli"a!ion 7ra!ui!ously(5) ;o (n!er 3n!o Any Con!rac! by /#ic# !#e &:ners#i) o$ an 3%%ovable 3s;rans%i!!ed or AcGuired (i!#er 7ra!ui!ously or $or a FaluableConsidera!ionAl$o, &nder Article 18.8 of the Civil Code, a $pecial power of attorne' i$ nece$$ar'for an agent to enter into a contract b' which the owner$hip of an immovable propert'i$ tran$mitted or ac)&ired, either grat&ito&$l' or for a val&able con$ideration. 0ahud v.Court of Appeals, -. SCRA 1! (2//".According to the provi$ion$ of Article 18.4 on Agenc', when the $ale of a piece ofland or an' intere$t therein i$ made thro&gh an agent, the a&thorit' of the latter $hallbe in writing. Ab$ent thi$ re)&irement, the $ale $hall be void. Al$o, &nder Article 18.8,a $pecial power of attorne' i$ nece$$ar' in order for an agent to enter into a contractb' which the owner$hip of an immovable propert' i$ tran$mitted or ac)&ired, eithergrat&ito&$l' or for a val&able con$ideration. *state of Lino Olaguer v. Ong)oco, 56,SCRA ,7, (-++2).@hile the law re)&ire$ a $pecial power of attorne', the general power of attorne'wa$ $&Ecient in thi$ ca$e, a$ Blag&er wa$ e,pre$$l' empowered to $ell an' of Mirgilio1$propertie$7andto$ign, e,ec&te,ac8nowledgeanddeliver'an'agreementtherefor.Kven if a doc&ment i$ de$ignated a$ a general power of attorne', the re)&irement of a$pecial power of attorne' i$ met if there i$ a clear mandatefromthe principal$peci%call' a&thori3ing the performance of the act. N.ravo2Guerrero v. .ravo, 46- SCRA244 (2//-"O. #he $pecial power of attorne' can be incl&ded in the general power whentheactortran$actionforwhichthe$pecial poweri$re)&iredi$$peci%edtherein.6*state of Lino Olaguer v. Ong)oco, 56, SCRA ,7, (-++2).(5.A) Sale o$ a Piece o$ ?and or 3n!eres! ;#erein (Ar!. 1274= Cit$2Lite %ealt$Inc. v. Court of Appeals, ,-5 SCRA ,25 H-+++I).Ab$ence of a written a&thorit' to $ell a piece of land i$ ipso 9urevoid, preci$el' toprotect the intere$t of an &n$&$pecting owner frombeing pre(&diced b' the&nwarranted act of another. 0ahud v. Court of Appeals, -. SCRA 1! (2//".Dnder Article 18.4, when a $ale of a piece of land or an' intere$t therein i$ thro&ghan agent, the a&thorit' of the agent $hall be in writing, otherwi$e the $ale $hall be void.NSee )iton9ua, 8r. v. #ternit Corp., 4/ SCRA 2/4 (2//6".O :otice that the article doe$ notdeclare the agenc' to be void, b&t the re$&lting contract of $ale e4ected b' the agent.(s the agency itself void< Agenc' ma' be oral &nle$$ the law re)&ire$ a $peci%c form. Aowever, to create orconve' real right$ over immovable propert', a $pecial power of attorne' i$ nece$$ar'.#h&$, when a $ale of a piece of land or an' portion thereof i$ thro&gh an agent, thea&thorit' of the latter $hall be in writing, otherwi$e, the $ale $hall be void. )iton9ua, 8r.v. #ternit Corp., 4/ SCRA 2/4 (2//6".#he Civil Code provide$ that in the $ale of a parcel of land or an' intere$t thereinmade thro&gh an agent, a $pecial power of attorne' i$ e$$ential. NArticle 18.8O. #hi$a&thorit' m&$t be in writing, otherwi$e the $ale $hall be void. NArticle 18.4O6Pine"av. Court of Appeals, ,76 SCRA ---, --2 (-++-).@here in the $pecial power of attorne' the agent wa$ primaril' empowered b' thecorporation to bring an e(ectment ca$e again$t the occ&pant and al$o 5to compromi$e .. . $o far a$ it $hall protect the right$ and intere$t of the corporation in theaforementionedlot$,6 andthat theagent dide,ec&teacompromi$einthelegalproceeding$ %led which $old the lot$ to the occ&pant, the compromi$e agreement thate4ected a $ale of the lot$ i$ void for the power to $ale b' wa' of compromi$e co&ld notbe implied to protect the intere$t$ of the principal to $ec&re po$$e$$ion of thepropertie$. Cos!ic Lu!#er v. Court of Appeals, -65 SCRA 162 (1996).#he e,pre$$ mandate re)&ired b' Article 18.4 to enable an appointee of an agenc'co&ched in general term$ to $ell m&$t be one that e,pre$$l' mention$ a $ale of a pieceof land or that incl&de$ a $ale a$ a nece$$ar' ingredient of the act mentioned. #hepower of attorne' need not contain a $peci%c de$cription of the land to be $old, $&chthat givingtheagentthepowerto$ell 5an'or all tract$, lot$, or parcel$6of landbelonging to the principal i$ ade)&ate. $omingo v. $omingo, 42 SCRA 1!1 (1.1".@hennopartic&lar formalit' i$ re)&iredb' law, r&le$ or reg&lation, thentheprincipal ma' appoint hi$ agent in an' form which might $&it hi$ convenience or that ofthe agent, in thi$ ca$e a letter addre$$ed to the agent re)&e$ting him to %le a prote$t inbehalf of the principal with the Collector of C&$tom$ again$t the apprai$ement of themerchandi$e imported into the co&ntr' b' the principal.7uen%le and Strei=v.Collector of Customs, !1 *hil 646 (11-".@here the nephew in hi$ own name $old a parcelof land with a ma$onr' ho&$econ$tr&cted thereon to the compan', when in fact it wa$ propert' owned b' the &ncle,b&t in the e$tafa ca$e %led b' the compan' again$t the nephew, the &ncle $wore &nderoaththat hehada&thori3ed hi$ nephewto $ell thepropert', the&nclecan becompelledinthecivil actiontoe,ec&tethedeedof $alecoveringthepropert'. 50thaving been proven at the trial that he gave hi$ con$ent to the $aid $ale, it follow$ thatthe defendant conferred verbal, or at lea$t implied, power of agenc' &pon hi$ nephewQ&ran, who accepted it in the $ame wa' b' $elling the $aid propert'. #he principal m&$ttherefore f&l%ll all the obligation$ contracted b' the agent, who acted within the $copeof hi$ a&thorit'. (Art$. 1./, 1.1/ and 1.2."(utierre' 1er!anos v. Orense, -2P#il. 57- (1914).Dnder Sec. !!- of the Code of Civil *roced&re, an agreement for the lea$ing for alonger period than one 'ear, or for the $ale of real propert', or of an intere$t therein, i$invalidif madeb'theagent &nle$$thea&thorit'of theagent beinwritingand$&b$cribed b' the part' $o&ght to be charged.Rio y ,laarrieta v.:utec, 4 *hil 2.6(126".A power of attorne' to conve' real propert' need not be in a p&blic doc&ment, itneedonl'beinwriting, $inceaprivate doc&menti$ competent to create,tran$mit,modif', or e,ting&i$h a right in real propert'. 8imene% v. Raot, !8 *hil !.8 (118".(i) Cor)ora!e Sale o$ ?and@hen the $ale of a piece of land or an' intere$t therein i$ thro&gh an agent, thea&thorit'ofthelatter$hall beinwriting7otherwi$e, the$ale$hall bevoid.City2liteRealty Corporation v. Court of Appeals, !2- SCRA !8- (2///".@hen the corporation1$ primar' p&rpo$e i$ to mar8et, di$trib&te, e,port and importmerchandi$e, the$aleof landi$notwithintheact&al orapparenta&thorit'of thecorporation acting thro&gh it$ oEcer$, m&ch le$$ when acting thro&gh the trea$&rer.;i8ewi$e Article$ 18.4 and 18.8 of Civil Code re)&ire$ that when land i$ $old thro&ghan agent, the agent1$ a&thorit' m&$t be in writing, otherwi$e the $ale i$ void. San 8uanStructural v. CA, 26 SCRA 6!1 (18".!(5.1) A"en!s Canno! 1uy Pro)er!y o$ Princi)al >nless Au!#oriJed (Ar!.1491H-I) #he prohibition again$t agent$ p&rcha$ing propert' in their hand$ for $ale ormanagement i$, however, clearl', not ab$ol&te. @hen $o a&thori3ed b' the principal,the agent i$ not di$)&ali%ed from p&rcha$ing the propert' he hold$ &nder a contract ofagenc' to $ell. ,laguer v. 0urugganan, 8r., -1- SCRA 46/ (2//.".(6) ;o ?ease Real Pro)er!y $or 4ore ;#an &ne 8earArticle 18.8 of the Civil Code e,pre$$e$ that a $pecial power of attorne' i$nece$$ar' to lea$e an' realpropert' to another per$on for more than one 'ear. #helea$eof real propert'for morethanone'ear i$con$iderednot merel'anact ofadmini$trationb&t anact of $trict dominionor of owner$hip. A$pecial power ofattorne' i$ th&$ nece$$ar' for it$ e,ec&tion thro&gh an agent.Shopper3s Para"ise%ealt$ v. %o4ue, 419 SCRA 9, (-++4).@here the lea$e contract involve$ the lea$e of realpropert' for a period of morethan one 'ear, and it wa$ entered into b' the agent of the le$$or and not the le$$orher$elf, in $&ch a ca$e, Article 18.8 of the Civil Code re)&ire$ that the agent be armedwith a $pecial power of attorne' to lea$e the premi$e$. Con$e)&entl', the provi$ion$ ofthe contract of lea$e, incl&ding the grant therein of an option to p&rcha$e to the le$$ee,wo&ld be &nenforceable. ."a. e Chua v. IAC, --9 SCRA 99 (1994).@hen the attorne'CinCfact wa$ empowered b' hi$ principal to ma8e an a$$ignmentof credit$, right$, and intere$t$, in pa'ment of debt$ for profe$$ional $erviced rendered!AF Realty & Dev., Inc. v. Dieselman Freigt Services Co., 3 SCRA +, (2002); Firme v. !u"al Enterprises an# Dev. Corp., 414 SCRA 190 (200).b' law$, and the hiring of law'er$ to ta8e charge of an' action$ nece$$ar' or e,pedientfor the intere$t$ of hi$ principal, and to defend $&it$ bro&ght again$t the principal, $&chpower$ nece$$aril'implie$ thea&thorit'topa'for theprofe$$ional $ervice$ th&$engaged, whichincl&de$a$$ignment of the(&dgment $ec&redfor theprincipal in$ettlement of o&t$tanding profe$$ional fee$.+unicipal Council of (loilo v. #vangelista,-- *hil. 2/ (1!/".(7) ;o Crea!e or Convey Real Ri"#!s over 3%%ovable Pro)er!y5#here i$ no doc&mentar' evidence on record that the re$pondent$Cowner$$peci%call' a&thori3ed re$pondent Hernande3 to $ell their propertie$ to another,incl&ding the petitioner$.Article 18.8 of the :ewCivil Code provide$that a$pecialpower of attorne' i$ nece$$ar' to enter into an' contract b' which the owner$hip of animmovable i$ tran$mitted or ac)&ired either grat&ito&$l' or for a val&ablecon$ideration, or to create or conve' real right$ over immovable propert', or for an'other act of $trict dominion. An' $ale of real propert' b' one p&rporting to be the agentof the regi$tered owner witho&t an' a&thorit' therefore in writing from the $aid owneri$n&ll andvoid. #hedeclaration$of theagent alonearegenerall'in$&Ecient toe$tabli$h the fact or e,tent of her a&thorit'.6 Liton)ua v. -ernan"e', 4-7 SCRA472, 49, (-++4).(2) ;o 4a0e 7i$!s(9) ;o ?oan or 1orro: 4oney(Bce)!'#he agent ma' borrow mone' when it $ &rgent and indi$pen$able for thepre$ervation of the thing$ which are &nder admini$tration. Po:er !o Sell (Bcludes Po:er !o 4or!"a"e and .ice .ersa (Ar!. 1279)A $pecial power of attorne' i$ nece$$ar' for an agent to borrow mone', &nle$$ itbe&rgentandindi$pen$ablefor thepre$ervationof thething$whichare&nderadmini$tration. :asuma v. *eirs of Cecilio S. $e 5illa, 4 SCRA 466 (2//6".40t i$ a generalr&le in the law agenc' that, in order to bind the principalb' amortgage on real propert' e,ec&ted b' an agent, it m&$t &pon it$ face p&rport to bemade, $igned and $ealed in the name of the principal, otherwi$e, it willbind theagent onl'. Go%un v. +ercado -11 SCRA !/- (2//6".A power of attorne', li8e an' other in$tr&ment, i$ to be con$tr&ed according tothenat&ral import of it$ lang&age7 andthea&thorit' whichtheprincipal ha$conferred &pon hi$ agent i$ not to be e,tended b' implication be'ond the nat&raland ordinar' $igni%cance of the term$ in which that a&thorit' ha$ been given. #heattorne' ha$ onl' $&ch a&thorit' a$ the principal ha$ cho$en to confer &pon him,and one dealing with him m&$t a$certain at hi$ own ri$8 whether hi$ act$ will bindtheprincipal. #h&$, wherethepower of attorne'whichve$tedtheagent witha&thorit' 5for me and in m' name to $ign, $ealand e,ec&te, and a$ m' act anddeed, deliver' an' lea$e, an' other deed for conve'ing an' real or per$onalpropert'6 or 5an' other deed for the conve'ing of an' real or per$onal propert',6 itdoe$ not carr' with it or impl' that the agent for and on behalf of hi$ principal ha$thepower toe,ec&teapromi$$or'noteor amortgageto$ec&reit$pa'ment.&ational .an! v. Tan ,ng S%e, -! *hil. 4-1 (12".4$o%un v. &erca#o ,11 SCRA 0, (2006).@here the power of attorne' e,ec&ted b' the principal a&thori3ed the agent 5+'mean$ of a mortgage of m' real propert', to borrow and lend $&m$ in ca$h, at $&chintere$t and for $&ch period$ and condition$ a$ he ma' deem propert' and to collector to pa' the principal and intere$t thereon when d&e,6 while it did not a&thori3e theagent to e,ec&te deed$ of $ale with right of rep&rcha$e over the propert' of theprincipal, nonethele$$ wo&ld validate the main contract of loan entered into with thedeed of $ale with right of rep&rcha$e con$tit&ting merel' an e)&itable mortgage,both contract$ of which were within the $cope of a&thorit' of the agent to enter intointhenameof theprincipal.Rodrigue%v. 0amintuanand$e8esus, !.*hil 8.6(118".A $pecial power of attorne' to mortgage real e$tate i$ limited to $&ch a&thorit'to mortgage and doe$ not bind the grantor per$onall' to other obligation$contracted b' the grantee (in thi$ ca$e the per$onal loan obtained b' the agent inhi$ own name from the *:+" in the ab$ence of an' rati%cation or other $imilar actthat wo&ld e$top the grantor from )&e$tioning or di$owning $&ch other obligation$contractedb'thegrantee.0hilippine&ational .an!v. Sta. +aria, 2SCRA!/!(16". 0notherword$, thepowertomortgagedoe$notincl&dethepowertoobtainloan$, e$peciall' when the grantor$ allege that the' had no bene%t at all from theproceed$ of the loan ta8en b' the agent in hi$ own name from the ban8. 50t i$ not&n&$&al infamil'andb&$ine$$circle$that onewo&ldallowhi$propert'or an&ndivided $hare in real e$tate to be mortgaged b' another a$ $ec&rit', either a$ anaccommodation or for val&able con$ideration, b&t the grant of $&ch a&thorit' doe$not e,tend to a$$&ming per$onal liabilit', m&ch le$$ $olidar' liabilit', for an' loan$ec&red b' the grantee in the ab$ence of e,pre$$ a&thorit' $o given b' the grantor.60hilippine &ational .an! v. Sta. +aria, 2 SCRA !/!, !1/ (16".@here the power of attorne' given to the h&$band b' the wife wa$ limited to agrant of a&thorit' to mortgage a parcel of land titled in the wife1$ name, the wifema' not be heldliableforthepa'ment ofthemortgage debt contracted b'theh&$band, a$thea&thorit'tomortgagedoe$not carr'withit thea&thorit'tocontract obligation. $e 5illa v. Faricante, 1/- *hil. 6.2 (1-".(1+) ;o 1ind !#e Princi)al !o Render So%e Service /i!#ou! Co%)ensa!ion(11) ;o 1ind !#e Princi)al in a Con!rac! o$ Par!ners#i)(1-) ;o &bli"a!e !#e Princi)al as a 7uaran!or or Sure!y@here a power of attorne' i$ e,ec&ted primaril' to enable the attorne'CinCfact, a$managerof amercantileb&$ine$$, tocond&ctit$a4air$forandonbehalf of theprincipal, who i$ the owner of the b&$ine$$, and to thi$ end the attorne'CinCfact i$a&thori3ed to e,ec&te contract$ relating to the principal1$ propert' N5act and deeddeliver', an' lea$e, or an' other deedfor theconve'ingan' real or per$onalpropert'6 and 5act and deed deliver', an' lea$e, relea$e, bargain, $ale, a$$ignment,conve'ance or a$$&rance, or an' other deed for the conve'ing an' real or per$onalpropert'6O , $&ch power will not be interpreted a$ giving the attorne'CinCfact power tobind the principal b' a contract of independent g&arant' or $&ret' &nconnected withthe cond&ct of the mercantile b&$ine$$. Feneral word$ contained in $&ch power willnot be interpreted to e,tend power to the ma8ing of a contract of $&ret'$hip, b&t willbelimited, &nder thewellC8nowr&leof con$tr&ctionindicatedinthee,pre$$ ine9usdemgeneris, a$appl'ingtomatter$$imilar totho$epartic&larl'mentioned.$irector v. Sing 8uco, -! *hil 2/- (12".(1,) ;o Acce)! or Re)udia!e an 3n#eri!ance(14) ;o Ra!i$y or Reco"niJe &bli"a!ions Con!rac!ed 1e$ore !#e A"ency@here it appear$ that a wife gave her h&$band a power of attorne' 5to loan andborrowmone'6andtomortgageherpropert', thatfactdoe$notcarr'withitorimpl' that he ha$ a legal right to $ign her name to a promi$$or' note which wo&ldma8e her liable for the pa'ment of a preCe,i$ting debt of the h&$band or that of hi$%rm, for which $he wa$ not previo&$l' liable, or to mortgage her propert' to $ec&rethe preCe,i$ting debt. .an! of 0.(. v. $e Coster, 4. *hil -4 (12-".@here the term$ of the power granted to the $&b$tit&ted attorne'CinCfact wa$ totheendthattheprincipalC$ellerma'beabletocollectthebalanceofthe$ellingprice of the printing e$tabli$hment $old, $&ch $&b$tit&te agent had no power to enterinto new $ale$ arrangement$ with the b&'er, or to novate the term$ of the original$ale. 5illa v. Garcia .os6ue, 4 *hil 126 (126".e. 5o!ariJed Po:er o$ A!!orneyA notari3ed power of attorne' carrie$ with it the evidentiar' weight conferred &ponit with re$pect to it$ d&e e,ect&ion. 5elso v. Court of Appeals, 26/ SCRA -! (16".@henthedoc&ment &nder $cr&tin'i$a$pecial power of attorne'that i$d&l'notari3ed, the notarial ac8nowledgment i$ prima facie evidence of the fact of it$ d&ee,ec&tion2a b&'er ha$ ever' rea$on to rel' on a per$on1$ a&thorit' to $ell a partic&larpropert' owned b' a corporationon theba$i$ of a notari3ed board re$ol&tion2&ndeniabl' the b&'er i$ an innocent p&rcha$er for val&e in good faith.St. +ary's Farm,(nc. v. 0rima Real 0roperties, (nc., -6/ SCRA ./4 (2//8".333.P&/(R A5 &1?37A;3&5S &F ;9( A7(5; 1. 7eneral &bli"a!ion o$ A"en! /#o Acce)!s !#e A"ency (Ar!. 1224)a. >)on Acce)!ance o$ A))oin!%en!' A"en! 3s 1ound !o Carry on A"ency !o 3!sCo%)le!ion and $or !#e 1eneK! o$ Princi)al&;9(R/3S( =A"en! /ill 1e ?iable $or a%a"es :#ic# ;#rou"# 9is 5on.Per$or%ance !#e Princi)al 4ay SuCer a%a"esb.3n(ven!o$ea!#o$Princi)al'A"en!4us!Finis#1usinessAlready1e"unS#ould elay (n!ail Any an"er(50T S**' Ar!. 1919(,) . ea!# (B!in"uis#esA"ency"0n con$tr&ing the original ver$ion of Article 1884 (Article 1.18 of the old Civil Code", theS&preme Co&rt held that the b&rden i$ on the per$on who $ee8$ to ma8e an agent liable to$how that the lo$$e$ and damage ca&$ed were occa$ioned b' the fa&lt or negligence oftheagent7 mereallegationwitho&t $&b$tantiationi$ not eno&ghtoma8etheagentper$onall' liable. *eredia v. Salina, 1/ *hil 1-. (1/8".@here the holder of an e,cl&$ive and irrevocable power of attorne' to ma8ecollection$, failed to collect the $&m$ d&e to the principal and thereb' allowed the allottedf&nd$ to be e,ha&$ted b' other creditor$, $&ch agent wa$ ad(&dged to have failed to actwiththecareof agoodfather of afamil're)&ired&nder Article188.andbecameper$onall' liable for the damage$ which the principal ma' $&4er thro&gh hi$ nonCperformance. 0&. v. +anila Surety, 14 SCRA ..6 (16-".@heretheprevailing$tat&tor'r&lethenwa$Article26.of theCodeof Commercewhich declared that no agent $hall p&rcha$e for him$elf or for another that which he ha$been ordered to $ell, the Co&rt held that a $ale b' a bro8er to him$elf witho&t the con$entof theprincipal wo&ldbevoidandine4ect&al whether thebro8er ha$beeng&ilt'offra&d&lent cond&ct or not. Con$e)&entl', $&chbro8er i$ not entitledtoreceivean'commi$$ion&nderthecontract, m&chle$$an'reimb&r$ementof e,pen$e$inc&rredinp&r$&ing and clo$ing $&ch $ale$. #he $ame prohibition i$ now contained in Article 141(1"of the Civil Code. .arton v. )eyte Asphalt, 46 *hil !8 (124".@henthe%nancecompan'e,ec&te$amortgagecontractthatcontain$aprovi$ionthat in the event of accident or lo$$, it $hall ma8e a proper claim again$t the in$&rancecompan', wa$ine4ect anagenc'relation, andthat &nder Article1884, the%nancecompan'wa$bo&ndb'it$acceptancetocarr'o&t theagenc', andin$piteof thein$tr&ction$ of the borrower$ to ma8e $&ch claim$ in$tead in$i$ted on having the vehiclerepaired b&t event&all' re$&lting in lo$$ of the in$&rance coverage, the %nance compan'hadbreachedit$ d&t'of diligence, andm&$t a$$&methedamage$ $&4eredb'theborrower$, and con$e)&entl' can no longer collect on the balance of the mortgage loan$ec&red thereb'. 5A -inance v. Court of Appeals, -+1 SCRA 157 (1991).#hewellC$ettledr&lei$thatanagenti$al$ore$pon$ibleforan'negligenceintheperformance of it$ f&nction (Art. 1/" and i$ liable for the damage$ which the principalma'$&4erb'rea$onof it$negligentact. (Art. 1884".5ritishAir,a$sv.CourtofAppeals, -25 SCRA 45+ (1992).-. &bli"a!ion o$ A"en! /#o eclines A"ency (Ar!. 1225)a.3$ 7oods Are For:arded !o 9i%'Bb$erve diligence of a good father of a famil' inc&$tod' and pre$ervation of good$ &ntil new agent appointedb. Co%)are :i!# Ar!. 19-9 R Bbligation of an agent who withdraw$ form an agenc' R hem&$t contin&e to act &ntil principal ta8e$ nece$$ar' $tep$ to meet $it&ation,. 7eneral Rule on (Bercise o$ Po:era. A"en! 4us! Ac! @/i!#in !#e Sco)e o$ 9is Au!#ori!yA (Ar!. 1221)(1) Meaning of 6Perfor!ance 7ithin the Scope of Authorit$8 (Ar!. 19++)(-) 1e Ma$ Perfor! Acts Con"ucive to Acco!plish!ent of Agenc$ PurposeDnder Article 1881 of the Civil Code, the agent m&$t act within the $cope of hi$a&thorit'tobindhi$principal. Solonga$theagent ha$a&thorit', e,pre$$orimplied, the principal i$ bo&nd b' the act$ of the agent on hi$ behalf, whether or notthe third per$on dealing with the agent believe$ that the agent ha$ act&al a&thorit'.#h&$, all $ignatorie$inacontract $ho&ldbeclothedwitha&thorit'tobindthepartie$ the' repre$ent. Sargasso Construction & $evelopment Corporation>0ic! &Shovel, (nc.,>Atlantic #rectors, (nc. 38oint 5enture4 v. 0hilippine 0orts Authority, 62!SCRA 26/ (2/1/".Article 1881 of the Civil Code provide$ that Sthe agent m&$t act within the $copeof hi$a&thorit'.S *&r$&ant tothea&thorit'givenb'theprincipal, theagent i$granted the right Sto a4ect the legal relation$ of hi$ principal b' the performance ofact$ e4ect&ated in accordance with the principal9$ manife$tation of con$ent.SPaci9c %ehouse Corp. v. *I5 Securities, Inc., 6,, SCRA -14 (-+1+).b. Co%)are :i!# Ar!. 1227 R A"en! 4us! Follo: 3ns!ruc!ions o$ !#e Princi)alc.Au!#ori!yo$ A"en!5o!ee%ed(Bceeded3$Per$or%edina4anner4oreAdvan!a"eous !o Princi)al (Ar!. 122-)(1)Co%)are'Agent Shoul" /ot Act If It 7oul" Manifestl$ %esult in Loss ora!age to Principal (Ar!. 1222).Article1882oftheCivil Codeprovide$thatthelimit$ofanagent1$a&thorit'$hall not becon$iderede,ceeded$ho&ldit havebeenperformedinamanneradvantageo&$ to the principal than that $peci%ed b' him. ,laguer v. 0urugganan, 8r.,-1- SCRA 46/ (2//.".#he admi$$ion$ obtained b' the agent from the adver$e part' prior to the formalamendment of the complaint that incl&ded the principal a$ a part' to the $&it, canbeavailedof b'theprincipal 5$inceanagent ma'do$&chact$ a$ ma'becond&cive to the accompli$hment of the p&rpo$e of the agenc', admi$$ion$ $ec&redb' the agent within the $cope of the agenc' o&ght to favor the principal. #hi$ ha$ tobe the r&le, for the act or declaration$ of an agent of the part' within the $cope ofthe agenc' and d&ring it$ e,i$tence are con$idered and treated in t&rn a$declaration$, act$ and repre$entation$ of hi$ principal and ma' be given in evidenceagain$t $&ch part'6 .ay 5ie" *otel v. 7er & Co., 116 SCRA !2. (182".d. (Cec!s o$ 5on.Ra!iKedAc!s one by A"en! in(Bcess o$ 9is Au!#ori!y'>nen$orceable, 5o! Foid (Ar!s. 1,17, 14+,, and 1292)@hen mone' i$ received a$ a depo$it b' an agent, and that mone' i$ t&rned over b'theagent totheprincipal, withnoticethat it i$themone'of thedepo$itor, theprincipal i$ bo&nd to deliver to the depo$itor, even if hi$ agent wa$ not a&thori3ed toreceive $&ch depo$it. N#here ha$, in e4ect, rati%cation of the &na&thori3ed act of theagent, thereb' binding the principalO. Cason v. Ric!ards, - *hil 6! (1/6".@hentheadmini$trator enter$intoacontract that areo&t$ideof the$copeofa&thorit', thecontract wo&ldneverthele$$ not beanab$ol&ten&llit', b&t $impl'voidableN&nenforceableO at thein$tanceof thepartie$ whohadbeenimproperl'repre$ented, and onl' $&ch partie$ can a$$ert the n&llit' of $aid contract$ a$ to them.?ayco v. Serra, 4 *hil 8- (12-".Dnder Article 188 of the :ew Civil Code, the act$ of an agent be'ond the $cope ofhi$ a&thorit' do not bind the principal, &nle$$ the latter rati%e$ the $ame e,pre$$l' orimpliedl'.H&rthermore,when the third per$on. .. 8now$ that the agent wa$actingbe'ond hi$ power or a&thorit', the principal cannot be held liable for the act$ of theagent. 0f the $aid third per$on i$ aware of the limit$ of the a&thorit', he i$ to blame, andi$not entitledtorecover damage$fromtheagent, &nle$$thelatter &ndertoo8to$ec&re the principal1$ rati%cation.Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, ,+4 SCRA -5(1999)7 Sa@c Alcan v. (mperial 5egetale, !-- SCRA -- (2//1".Kven when the agent, in thi$ ca$e the attorne'CatClaw who repre$ented the client inforgingacompromi$eagreement, ha$ e,ceededhi$ a&thorit'inin$ertingpenalt'cla&$e, the $tat&$ of the $aid cla&$e i$ not void b&t merel' voidable,i.e.,capable ofbeing rati%ed. 0ndeed, the client1$ fail&re to )&e$tion the incl&$ion of the penalt' in the(&dicial compromi$e de$pite $everal opport&nitie$ to do $o and with the repre$entationof newco&n$el, wa$tantamo&nt torati%cation. Aence, theclient i$$toppedfroma$$ailing the validit' thereof.5or)a, Sr. v. Sul$ap, Inc., ,99 SCRA 6+1 (-++,).Contract$ entered into in the name of another per$on b' one who ha$ been given noa&thorit' or legal repre$entation or who ha$ acted be'ond hi$ power$ are cla$$i%ed a$&na&thori3edcontract$andare&nenforceable, &nle$$the'arerati%ed.(o'unv.Merca"o 511 SCRA ,+5 (-++6).e. ConseGuences /#en A"en! Ac!s in 9is &:n 5a%e (Ar!. 122,)(1)Principal 1as/o%ightAgainstThir"PersonIfAgentActsin1isO,n/a!eArticle 1.1. of the NoldO Civil Code provide$ that 5@hen an agent act$ in hi$ ownname, the principal $hall have no action again$t the per$on$ with whom the agentha$ contracted, nor the $aid per$on$ again$t the principal.6 Article 246 of the Codeof Commerce provide$ that 5@hen an agent tran$act$ b&$ine$$ in hi$ own name, it$hall not be nece$$ar' for him to $tate who i$ the principal, and he $hall be directl'liable a$ if the b&$ine$$ were for hi$ own acco&nt, to the per$on$ with whom hetran$act$ the $ame, $aid per$on not having an' right of action again$t the principal,nor thelatteragain$t the former,the liabilitie$of theprincipal andtheagent toeachother alwa'$ re$erved.6 0t beinge$tabli$hedb' apreponderanceof theevidence that the agent acted in hi$ own name in $elling the merchandi$e to thedefendant$, and that the defendant$ f&ll' believed that the' were dealing with the$aidagent, witho&t an'8nowledgeof thefact that hewa$ theagent of theplainti4$, and having paid him in f&ll for the merchandi$e p&rcha$ed, the' are notliable to the plainti4$, for $aid merchandi$e. #hi$ i$ tr&e whether the tran$action i$covered b' the provisions of the Civil Code or b' the provi$ion$ of the CommercialCode. )im Tiu v. Rui% & Rementeria, 1- *hil. !6., !./ (11/".@hen an agent act$ in hi$ own name, the principal ha$ no right of action again$ttheper$on$withwhomtheagent ha$contracted, or $&chper$on$again$t theprincipal. 0n $&ch ca$e, the agent i$ directl' liable to the per$on with whom he ha$contracted, a$ if the tran$action$ were hi$ own.Smith .ell v. Sotelo +atti, 44 *hil.8.4 (122".Kven when the agent ha$ a $pecial power of attorne' to mortgage the propert' ofthe principal, when $&ch agent neverthele$$ e,ec&ted the real e$tate mortgage inhi$ownname, theniti$notvalidandbindingontheprincipal p&r$&anttotheprovi$ion$ of Article 188! of the Civil Code.0hilippine Sugar #states $ev. Corp. v.0oi%at, 48 *hil. -!6 (12-"7 Rural .an! of .omon v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 2-(12".Dnder Article188!of theCivil Code, if anagent act$inhi$ownname, theprincipal ha$noright of actionagain$t theper$on$withwhomtheagent ha$contracted7 neither have $&ch per$on$ again$t the principal. 0n $&ch ca$e the agenti$ the one directl' bo&nd in favor of the per$on with whom he ha$ contracted, a$ ifthe tran$action were hi$ own, e,cept when the contract involve$ thing$ belonging tothe principal. Since the principal$ have ca&$ed their agent to enter into a charterpart' in hi$ own name and witho&t di$clo$ing that he act$ for an' principal, then$&ch principal$ have no $tanding to $&e &pon an' i$$&e or ca&$e of action ari$ingfrom $aid charter part'. +arimperio Compania &aviera, S.A. v. Court of Appeals, 1-6SCRA !68 (18.".(-)Agent Is irectl$ 5oun" to Thir" Person as If the Transaction 7ere 1isO,n@hen the agent e,ec&te$ a contract in hi$ per$onal capacit', the fact that he i$de$cribed in the contract a$ the agent of the principal and the propertie$ mortgagedpertain to the principal, ma' not be ta8en to mean that he enter$ into the contractin the name of the principal. A mortgage on real propert' of the principal not madeand $igned in the name of the principali$ not valid a$ to the principal. &ational.an! v. 0alma Gil, -- *hil. 6! (1!1"7 &ational .an! v. Agudelo, -8 *hil 6-- (1!!".Apart'who$ign$ abill of e,changea$ anagent (a$ the*re$ident of thecompan'", b&t failedtodi$clo$ehi$principal become$per$onall'liablefor thedraft$ he accepted, even when he did $o e,pre$$l' a$ an agent. Section 2/ of the:egotiable 0n$tr&ment$ ;aw $a'$ provide$ e,pre$$l' that when an agent $ign$ in anrepre$entative capacit', b&t doe$ not indicate or di$clo$e hi$ principal wo&ld inc&rper$onal liabilit' on the bill of e,change.0hil. .an! of Commerce v. Aruego, 1/2SCRA -!/ (181".(LC(P;3&5 '/#en Con!rac! 3nvolves ;#in"s 1elon"in" !o Princi)alKven when the agent ha$ written a&thorit' to conve' real propert' on behalf ofthe principal, neverthele$$ when the deed of $ale wa$ e,ec&ted b' the agent in herown name witho&t $howing the capacit' in which $he acted, altho&gh the act wa$do&btle$$ irreg&lar, the deed operated to bind the principal who had a&thori3ed the$ale. 8imene% v. Raot, !8 *hil. !.8 (118".@here the plainti4$ appointed the defendant to p&rcha$e a ve$$el and giving himmone' for that p&rpo$e, b&t the agent p&rcha$ed the boat and placed it in hi$ ownname, he ha$ breached hi$ %d&ciar' obligation and i$ obliged to tran$fer the $ameto the plainti4$,or the plainti4$have a right to be $&brogated.Accordingtothee,ception&nder Art. 1.1.of theoldCivil Code(whenthing$belongingtotheprincipal are dealt with"the agent is ound to the principal although he does notassumethecharacter of suchagent andappearsactinginhiso"nname. #hemone'withwhichthela&nchwa$ bo&ght havingcomefromtheplainti4, thee,ception e$tabli$hed in Art. 1.1. i$ applicable to the in$tant ca$e. S'28uco v. Sy28uco, 4/ *hil. 6!4 (12/".@here a coCowner tran$fer$ the entiret' of the mining claim to the b&'er, wheretheb&'er 8newthat itincl&dedtheoneChalf $harepro2indivisoof theother coCowner, thenthetran$actionma'becon$idereda$onewherethedi$po$ingcoCowner acted a$ agent of the other coCowner. Con$e)&entl', &nder Article 188! ofthe Civil Code, $&ch other coCowner ma' $&e the per$on with whom the agent dealtwith in hi$ (agent1$" own name, when the tran$action involve$ thing$ belong to theprincipal. Goldstar v. )im, 2- SCRA -. (168".@hen acommi$$ionagententer$ into a$hipping contract inhi$ own name totran$port the grain$ of :HA on a ve$$el owned b' a $hipping compan', :HA cannotclaim it i$ not liable to the $hipping compan' &nder Article 188! when thing$ belongto the principal are dealt with, the agent i$ bo&nd to the principal altho&gh he doe$not a$$&me the character of $&ch agent and appear$ acting in hi$ own name. 0nother word$, the agent1 apparent repre$entation 'ield$ to the principal1$ tr&erepre$entation and that, in realit' and in e4ect, the contract m&$t be con$idered a$entered into between the principal and the third per$on Corollaril', if the principalcan be obliged to perform hi$ d&tie$ &nder the contract, then it can al$o demand theenforcement of it$ right$ ari$ing from the contract.&ational Food Authority v. (AC,184 SCRA 166 (1/".(,) Provisions Are 7ithout Pre)u"ice to Actions 5et,een Principal an" Agent:See "iscussions #elo, on #reach #$ agent of his "ut$ of lo$alt$I4. S)eciKc &bli"a!ion Rules $or A"en!sa. 5o &bli"a!ion o$ A"en! !o Advance Funds (Ar!. 1226)' It isPrincipal3so#ligationtoa"vancethefun"s, #ut Principal topa$interestona"vances!a"e#$Agentfro!"a$hea"vancesthe!one$(Ar!. 191-).(LC(P; ' (1) 3$ S!i)ula!ed in !#e A"ency A"ree%en!(-) /#ere )rinci)alisinsolven! (SeeAr!.1919H,I' 3nsolvencyeB!in"uis#es an a"ency)b.A"en!S#ouldCarry&u!A"ency inAccordance :i!# Princi)alMs3ns!ruc!ions(Ar!. 1227)(1) 3$ a"en! $ollo:ed ins!ruc!ions, )rinci)al canno! se! u) a"en!Ms i"norance or circu%s!ance :#ic# )rinci)al :as, or ou"#! !o #ave been, a:are o$ (Ar!.1299"*&r$&ant to the in$tr&ction$ of the principal$, the agent p&rcha$ed a piece of land intheir name$ and in the $&m$ given to him b' the principal, and that after the fact ofp&rcha$e the principal$ had rati%ed the tran$action and even received pro%t$ ari$ingfrom the inve$tment in the land, b&t that event&all' a defect in the title to the landaro$e, the $aid principal$ cannot recover their lo$t inve$tment from the agent. 5#here i$nothingintherecordwhichwo&ldindicatethat thedefendant failedtoe,erci$erea$onable care and diligence in the performance of hi$ d&t' a$ $&ch agent, or that he&ndertoo8tog&aranteethevendor1$titletothelandp&rcha$edb'directionoftheplainti4$.6&epomuceno v. *eredia, . *hil -6!, -66 (1/.".@hen an agent in e,ec&ting the order$ and commi$$ion$ of hi$ principal carrie$ o&tthein$tr&ction$heha$receivedfromhi$principal, anddoe$not appear tohavee,ceeded hi$ a&thorit' or to have acted with negligence, deceit or fra&d, he cannot beheld re$pon$ible for the fail&re of hi$ principal to accompli$h the ob(ect of the agenc'.Agents, although they act in representation of the principal, are not guarantors for thesuccess of the usiness enterprise they are as!ed to manage.Guiterre% *ermanos v.,ria *ermanos, !/ *hil. 41 (11-".c. &bli"a!ion 5o! Carry &u! A"ency 3$ (Becu!ion /ould 4ani$es!ly Resul! in ?ossor a%a"e !o Princi)al (Ar!. 1222)@hile it i$ tr&e that an agent who act$ for a revealed principal in the ma8ing of acontract doe$ not become per$onall' bo&nd to the other part' in the $en$e that anaction can ordinaril' be maintained &pon $&ch contract directl' again$t the agent, 'etthat r&le doe$ not control when the agent cannot intercept and appropriate the thingwhichtheprincipal i$bo&ndtodeliver, andthereb'ma8etheperformanceof theprincipal impo$$ible. #he agent in an' event m&$t be precl&ded from doing an' po$itiveact that co&ld prevent performance on the part of hi$ principal, otherwi$e the agentbecome$liableal$oonthecontract.&ational .an!v. /elshFairchild, 44*hil .8/(12!".d. >;8 &F ?&8A?;8 ' &bli"a!ion in a ConNic! o$ 3n!eres! Si!ua!ion (Ar!. 1229) (1) A"en! s#all be liable !o !#e )rinci)al $or da%a"es sus!ained by !#e la!!er:#ere in case o$ conNic! o$ in!eres! si!ua!ion, and a"en! )re$erred #is o:nin!eres!.(-) A"en! )ro#ibi!ed $ro% buyin" )ro)er!y en!rus!ed !o #i% $orad%inis!ra!ion or sale :i!#ou! )rinci)alMs consen! (Ar!. 1491H-I).An agent cannot repre$ent both him$elf and hi$ principal in a tran$action involvingthe $hifting to another per$on of the agent1$ liabilit' for a debt to the principal.Aoiti%v. $e Silva, 4- *hil 88! (124".#hedirector andgeneral manager of the$toc8corporation, whoal$owa$ thema(orit' $toc8holder, and wa$ de$ignated to be the main negotiator for the compan'with the Fovernment for the $ale of it$ large tract of land, having $pecial 8nowledge ofcommercial information that wo&ld increa$e the val&e of the $hare$ in relation to the$ale of the parcel$ of land to the Fovernment, can be treated legall' a$ being an agentof the $toc8holder$ of the compan', with a %d&ciar' obligation to reveal to the other$toc8holder$ $&ch $pecialinformation before proceeding to p&rcha$e from the other$toc8holder$ their $hare$ of $toc8. 0f $&ch director obtain$ the p&rcha$e of the $hare$of a $toc8holder witho&t having di$clo$ed important fact$ or to render the appropriatereport on the e,pected increa$e in val&e of the compan', there wa$ fra&d committedfor which the director $hall be liable for the earning$ earned again$t the $toc8holder onthe $ale of $hare$. Strong v. Guiterre% Repide, 41 *hil. 4. (1/".A con%dentialemplo'ee who, 8nowing that hi$ principalwa$ negotiating with theowner of $ome land for the p&rcha$e thereof, $&rreptitio&$l' $&cceed$ in b&'ing it inthenameof hi$wife, commit$anact of di$lo'alt'andin%delit'tohi$principal,whereb'hebecome$liable, amongother thing$, for thedamage$ca&$ed, whichmeant to tran$fer the propert' bac8 to the principal &nder the term$ and condition$o4ered to the original owner.Sing 8uco and Sing .engco v. Sunyantong and )lorente,4! *hil -8 (122".@here an &ncle who wa$ acting a$ agent or admini$trator of propert' belonging to aniece had proc&red a #orren$ title in hi$ own name to $aid propert', he i$ deemed to bea tr&$tee, and he m&$t $&rrender the propert' to the niece and tran$fer title to her. #herelation$ of an agent to hi$ principal are %d&ciar' and in regard to the propert' formingthe $&b(ectCmatter of the agenc', he i$ e$topped from ac)&iring or a$$erting a titleadver$e to that of the principal. Con$e)&entl', an action in personam will lie again$t anagent to compel him to ret&rn or retran$fer to hi$ principal, or the latter1$ e$tate, thereal propert' committed to hi$ c&$tod' a$ $&ch agent andal$o to e,ec&tethenece$$ar' doc&ment$ of conve'ance to e4ect $&ch retran$fer. Severino v. Severino, 44*hil. !4! (12!".e. Rule 3$ A"en! 3s (%)o:ered !o 1orro: