Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp.

d. Elements of a contract of agency · c. Death of the principal or the agent (Arts. 1929-1932)

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Angeles v. Philippine National RailwaysPrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: Bordador v. LuzNext case→

Case DigestWeek 1 - Nature, Objective & Kinds of Agency

Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp.

G.R. No. L-24332 · January 31, 1978 · Supreme Court

d. Elements of a contract of agency · c. Death of the principal or the agent (Arts. 1929-1932)

Petitioner: Ramon Rallos, Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion RallosRespondent: Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation and Court of Appeals

Gist

Two sisters gave their brother a power of attorney to sell their co-owned land. One sister died, and the brother — knowing of her death — sold the whole lot anyway. The Court voided the sale as to the deceased sister's share: her death extinguished the agency instantly, and the good-faith exception does not protect a buyer where the agent himself knew of the death.

Core Doctrine

Agency rests on representation: the acts of the agent are in law the acts of the principal. Death of the principal extinguishes the agency ipso jure, and any act of the agent thereafter is void as to the deceased's interest. The exception in Article 1931 saves the transaction only where the agent acted without knowledge of the death and the third person contracted in good faith — both conditions must concur.

Facts

Sisters Concepcion Rallos and Gerundia Rallos (the principals) were registered co-owners in equal shares of a parcel of land in Cebu City. On April 21, 1954, they executed a special power of attorney in favor of their brother, Simeon Rallos (the agent), authorizing him to sell the property. (Lot No. 5983 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu, under TCT No. 11116. The power was duly registered on the certificate of title and was admittedly not coupled with an interest.)
Concepcion died on March 3, 1955.
On September 12, 1955 — more than six months after her death — Simeon sold the undivided shares of both sisters to respondent Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation for ₱10,686. (₱10,686.90, and every court found that Simeon knew his sister was dead: he "proceeded with the sale of the lot in the name of both his sisters ... without informing appellant of the death of the former." Neither had the heirs annotated her death on the title.)
A new transfer certificate of title was issued in the buyer's name. (TCT No. 11118 was cancelled and TCT No. 12989 issued to the corporation.)
Ramon Rallos, as administrator of Concepcion's estate, sued to recover her one-half share, praying that the sale be declared void as to that portion. (Civil Case No. R-4530, filed 18 May 1956 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Simeon and Gerundia both died while the case was pending and were substituted by the administrators of their estates.)
Court of First Instance — for the estate. The Court of First Instance ruled for the estate.
Court of Appeals — reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, sustaining the sale on the theory that the buyer had acted in good faith and that no notice of Concepcion's death had been given.
Before the Supreme Court. The administrator brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the sale of Concepcion Rallos' undivided share, executed by her attorney-in-fact after her death, is valid as against a purchaser who acted in good faith.

Ruling

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The sale was void insofar as it covered Concepcion's one-half share, which was ordered reconveyed to her estate.

Ratio

1. The Nature and Basis of Agency: Representation

The Court began from first principles.
By the relationship of agency, one person — the agent — is derivatively authorized to act for and on behalf of another, the principal.
Its essential characteristics are that it is (a) consensual, (b) preparatory, since it exists to conclude other juridical acts, (c) onerous as a rule, (d) nominate and bilateral, and above all (e) representative: qui facit per alium facit per se — he who acts through another acts himself.
The agent's acts, within the scope of authority, are in contemplation of law the acts of the principal.

2. Death Extinguishes the Agency by Operation of Law

Because agency is founded on representation and on the personal trust the principal reposes in the agent, it is extinguished by the death of either (Art. 1919 [3]).
The extinguishment operates ipso jure — automatically and without need of notice or of any act by the parties.
Simeon's authority therefore expired on March 3, 1955.
When he executed the deed in September, he had no principal to represent: Concepcion's rights had already passed to her heirs.

3. The Exceptions Do Not Apply

Two provisions temper the rule, and the Court examined both:
Article 1930 keeps an agency alive after death where it "has been constituted in the common interest" of principal and agent, or in the interest of a third person who accepted the stipulation. This power of attorney was an ordinary one, created solely in the sisters' interest — it was not coupled with an interest.
Article 1931 validates the agent's post-mortem act where two requisites concur: the agent acted without knowledge of the death, and the third person contracted with him in good faith. Here the first requisite failed outright. The Court of Appeals itself found that Simeon knew his sister had died. Good faith on the buyer's part cannot supply the missing element; the article demands both.

4. Good Faith Cannot Create Authority That Has Ceased to Exist

The Court rejected the notion that the buyer's innocence and the absence of an annotation on the title could validate the sale.
Article 1931 is an exception and must be construed strictly.
Nor could the buyer invoke the Torrens system: what it acquired from an agent whose authority had lapsed was, as to Concepcion's share, nothing at all.
Its remedy lies against Simeon Rallos.

Doctrine

Agency is representation. Its defining feature is that the agent acts for and in the name of the principal, so that the legal consequences attach to the principal.
Death extinguishes agency ipso jure. No notice, no revocation, and no act of the parties is required; the authority simply ceases. Acts done afterwards are void as to the deceased principal's interest.
The Article 1931 exception is conjunctive. It protects the transaction only where the agent was ignorant of the death and the third person acted in good faith. Where the agent knew, the sale cannot stand no matter how innocent the buyer.
Article 1930 requires a true common interest. An agency survives death only if constituted in the common interest of principal and agent or of a third person who accepted the stipulation — not merely because it was convenient or irrevocable in form.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Full-length digest in the format required by the course digest prompt.

Classification: ANALOGOUS · Ponente: Muñoz Palma, J. · G.R. No. L-24332, 31 January 1978

TOPIC/SUBTOPIC FOCUS: Week 1 — Nature, Objective, & Kinds of Agency: (d) Elements of a contract of agency.

TOPIC DOCTRINE CAPSULE. The essential elements of agency, drawn from Article 1868 in relation to Article 1881, are: (1) consent, express or implied, of the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agent acts as a representative and not for himself; and (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority. The elements are not merely definitional: because the third element — Representation — is the juridical basis of the relation, the character of agency as personal, representative and derivative controls such consequences as the effect of the death of either party. All four elements must subsist for the agent's act to bind the principal; failure of any one places the act under Article 1317 and Article 1403(1) as unauthorized and unenforceable.

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

This case is ANALOGOUS as to the assigned Topic/Subtopic: the Court sets out the four essential elements of agency and, more importantly, extends the third element — that the agent acts as a representative — into the operative rationale for a distinct question, namely the extinguishment of agency by the death of the principal. The controversy arose when Simeon Rallos, attorney-in-fact of his sisters Concepcion and Gerundia under a special power of attorney to sell a Cebu lot, sold Concepcion's undivided share to Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation after Concepcion had died and with knowledge of her death. The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and AFFIRMED EN TOTO the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which had declared the sale null and void as to Concepcion's one-half pro-indiviso share. The single central doctrine dominant to the Topic/Subtopic is that agency is "basically personal, representative, and derivative in nature" — the agent's authority emanating from the principal and his act being the act of the principal only if done within the scope of that authority — so that when the principal dies, the integration of personalities on which representation rests ceases, and the agency is extinguished ipso jure under Article 1919(3) subject only to the two exceptions in Article 1930 and Article 1931. The doctrine for which the case is most frequently cited — the strict construction of Article 1931 and the indispensability of the agent's lack of knowledge of the principal's death — is the decision's dispositive holding and is treated below as the secondary issue.

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts and Procedural Events

Concepcion and Gerundia, both surnamed Rallos, were sisters and registered co-owners of Lot No. 5983 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11116 of the Registry of Cebu.
On 21 April 1954, the sisters executed a special power of attorney in favor of their brother, Simeon Rallos, authorizing him to sell for and in their behalf Lot 5983. The power of attorney was duly registered on the original certificate of title recorded in the Register of Deeds of Cebu. It was admittedly not coupled with an interest.
On 3 March 1955, Concepcion Rallos died.
On 12 September 1955, Simeon Rallos — who, as found by the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, knew of his sister's death — sold the undivided shares of both Concepcion and Gerundia in Lot 5983 to Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation for ₱10,686.90. The deed of sale was registered; TCT No. 11118 was cancelled and TCT No. 12989 was issued in the name of the vendee. Simeon "proceeded with the sale of the lot in the name of both his sisters Concepcion and Gerundia Rallos without informing appellant (the realty corporation) of the death of the former." No notice of Concepcion's death was ever annotated on the certificate of title by her heirs.
On 18 May 1956, Ramon Rallos, as administrator of the Intestate Estate of Concepcion Rallos, filed a complaint (Civil Case No. R-4530, Court of First Instance of Cebu) praying that the sale of Concepcion's undivided share be declared unenforceable and the share reconveyed to her estate; that TCT No. 12989 be cancelled and a new title issued in the names of the corporation and the Intestate Estate of Concepcion Rallos in equal undivided shares; and for attorney's fees and costs. Named defendants were Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation, Simeon Rallos, and the Register of Deeds of Cebu, the last of whom was subsequently dropped.
The complaint was amended twice. The defendant corporation's Answer contained a cross-claim against its co-defendant Simeon Rallos, who in turn filed a third-party complaint against his sister Gerundia Rallos.
While the case was pending in the trial court, both Simeon and Gerundia died and were substituted by the respective administrators of their estates — Juan T. Borromeo for Simeon's estate and Josefina Rallos, special administratrix, for Gerundia's.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Cebu, through Hon. Amador E. Gomez, rendered judgment: on the complaint, declaring the deed of sale null and void insofar as Concepcion's one-half pro-indiviso share is concerned, ordering cancellation of TCT No. 12989 and issuance of a new title in the names of the corporation and the Estate of Concepcion Rallos in equal pro-indiviso shares, ordering delivery of possession of the undivided one-half share to plaintiff, sentencing Simeon's administrator to pay ₱1,000.00 attorney's fees, and ordering both defendants to pay costs jointly and severally; on the cross-claim, sentencing Simeon's administrator to pay the corporation ₱5,343.45 representing the price of the one-half share plus ₱500.00 attorney's fees; and dismissing the third-party complaint without prejudice.
Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals insofar as the judgment set aside the sale of Concepcion's one-half share.
On 20 November 1964, the Court of Appeals resolved the appeal in favor of the appellant corporation, sustaining the sale on the reasoning that the corporation had acted in good faith, that no provision of the Code declares void an act of an agent done with knowledge of the principal's death as against a good-faith third person, and that the heirs must suffer the consequences of their failure to annotate the death on the title.
On 4 March 1965, the Court of Appeals denied the administrator's motion for reconsideration.
On 31 January 1978, the Supreme Court rendered its Decision on the Petition for Review on certiorari.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Ramon Rallos, Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion Rallos)

Petitioner's theory, as reflected in the relief prayed for and sustained by the Court, was that the sale of Concepcion's undivided share was unenforceable because it was executed by the attorney-in-fact after the death of his principal, the agency having been extinguished by that death; and that the share should accordingly be reconveyed to her estate and the vendee's title cancelled pro tanto.

B. Respondent (Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation)

Respondent corporation contended, and the Court of Appeals sustained, that notwithstanding the death of the principal Concepcion Rallos, the act of the attorney-in-fact in selling her share is valid and enforceable inasmuch as the corporation acted in good faith in buying the property. It argued that there is no provision in the Code declaring void whatever is done by an agent having knowledge of the death of his principal even as against third persons who contracted with him in good faith and without knowledge of the death. It invoked Manresa on revocation, urging that where the agency is general the principal need only exercise due diligence to publicize the revocation, and acts with good-faith third persons remain valid. It further relied on the registration of the power of attorney on the certificate of title and the absence of any annotation of the death, arguing that as between two innocent persons the one who made the loss possible must bear it, invoking Blondeau v. Nano, 61 Phil. 625, and Section 55 of the Land Registration Law. Finally it cited Cassiday v. McKenzie (Pa. 1842) for the proposition that payments made to an agent after the principal's death are good where "the parties [were] ignorant of the death."

C. Common Ground / Stipulations

The decision expressly states that "[t]he following facts are not disputed" — the co-ownership, the 21 April 1954 special power of attorney, the 3 March 1955 death of Concepcion, the 12 September 1955 sale, the registration, and the cancellation and issuance of titles. It is likewise "admittedly" established that the special power of attorney "was not coupled with an interest." The Court further treated as established the concurrent finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that Simeon Rallos knew of his sister's death at the time of the sale.

IV. Issues

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered)

Classification note: the case is classified ANALOGOUS. The Court does not adjudicate the presence or absence of the elements of agency on these facts — the validity of the 1954 special power of attorney was never contested. Instead, the Court restates the four elements and the personal, representative and derivative character of agency, and extends that characterization to resolve a distinct question. Framed to track the Court's own use of the topic:

Whether or not the representative character of agency — the integration of the personality of the principal into that of the agent, from which the agent's authority derives — necessarily ceases upon the death of the principal, such that the agency is extinguished ipso jure under Article 1919(3) without need of notice to the agent, and any act of the agent thereafter is void ab initio unless saved by Article 1930 or Article 1931.

B. Secondary Issues

Whether or not the sale executed by Simeon Rallos after the death of his principal falls within the exception in Article 1930 (agency constituted in the common interest of principal and agent, or in the interest of a third person who accepted the stipulation).
Whether or not the sale falls within the exception in Article 1931, that is, whether the good faith of the third person alone suffices where the agent acted with knowledge of the principal's death.
Whether or not the heirs' failure to annotate the principal's death on the certificate of title, coupled with the registration of the power of attorney and the vendee's good faith, validates the sale under the Blondeau line of cases and Section 55 of the Land Registration Law.

C. Ancillary / Incidental Issues

Whether or not the Civil Code imposes upon the heirs of a deceased principal a duty to notify the agent of the death. The Court resolved this in the negative, noting that Article 1932 imposes the converse duty — upon the heirs of a deceased agent — only.

V. Ruling / Disposition (Categorical, Issue-Mapped)

MAIN ISSUE — YES. "By reason of the very nature of the relationship between Principal and agent, agency is extinguished by the death of the principal or the agent. This is the law in this jurisdiction." The extinguishment operates ipso jure and instantaneously; "[t]he Civil Code does not impose a duty on the heirs to notify the agent of the death of the principal."

SECONDARY ISSUE 1 — NO. "Article 1930 is not involved because admittedly the special power of attorney executed in favor of Simeon Rallos was not coupled with an interest."

SECONDARY ISSUE 2 — NO. Both requisites of Article 1931 must concur. "The law expressly requires for its application lack of knowledge on the part of the agent of the death of his principal; it is not enough that the third person acted in good faith." Simeon Rallos having known of Concepcion's death, "Article 1931 of the Civil Code is inapplicable," and "the agent's act is unenforceable against the estate of his principal."

SECONDARY ISSUE 3 — NO. The Blondeau line is "not on all fours" with this case; the Manresa passage on publicity of revocation "treats of revocation by an act of the principal ... which is to be distinguished from revocation by operation of law such as death of the principal which obtains in this case."

ANCILLARY ISSUE — NO. "What the Code provides in Article 1932 is that, if the agent die his heirs must notify the principal thereof ... Hence, the fact that no notice of the death of the principal was registered on the certificate of title of the property in the Office of the Register of Deeds, is not fatal to the cause of the estate of the principal."

DISPOSITIVE PORTION (VERBATIM):

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, We set aside the ecision [sic] of respondent appellate court, and We affirm en toto the judgment rendered by then Hon. Amador E. Gomez of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, quoted in pages 2 and 3 of this Opinion, with costs against respondent realty corporation at all instances. So Ordered.

(Note: the decretal orders thus affirmed en toto are those of the trial court reproduced in Section II, item 8 above.)

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines (Topic-Focused)

A. Ratio Decidendi (Decisive Reasoning)

Step 1 — The Court begins from Article 1317 and Article 1403(1), the general prohibition on contracting for another without authority. "It is a basic axiom in civil law embodied in our Civil Code that no one may contract in the name of another without being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him. A contract entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or the legal representation or who has acted beyond his powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been executed, before it is revoked by the other contracting party."
The Court quotes Article 1403(1) in full.
Step 2 — Out of that axiom the Court derives the agency relation and states its four essential elements. Verbatim: "Out of the above given principles, sprung the creation and acceptance of the relationship of agency whereby one party, caged [called] the principal (mandante), authorizes another, called the agent (mandatario), to act for and in his behalf in transactions with third persons. The essential elements of agency are: (1) there is consent, express or implied of the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agents acts as a representative and not for himself, and (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority."
The Court footnotes this to Article 1868 and Article 1881, together with 11 Manresa 422-423, 4 Sanchez Roman 478, 26 Scaevola 243, 262, and Tolentino, vol. 5, p. 340.
Step 3 — The Court characterizes the relation, and this characterization is the hinge of the case. Verbatim: "Agency is basically personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The authority of the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal; his act is the act of the principal if done within the scope of the authority. Qui facit per alium facit se. 'He who acts through another acts himself.'"
Step 4 — From that characterization the Court derives the rule of extinguishment by death (Article 1919(3)). "By reason of the very nature of the relationship between Principal and agent, agency is extinguished by the death of the principal or the agent."
The Court supplies the doctrinal reason from Manresa: "the rationale for the law is found in the juridical basis of agency which is representation. Them [There] being an in[t]egration of the personality of the principal integration that of the agent it is not possible for the representation to continue to exist once the death of either is establish[ed]."
Pothier and Laurent are cited to the same effect, the latter for the proposition that "the juridical tie between the principal and the agent is severed ipso jure upon the death of either without necessity for the heirs of the fact to notify the agent of the fact of death of the former."
The Court notes the same rule at common law and in American jurisprudence.
Step 5 — The Court identifies the two, and only two, statutory exceptions. Article 1930 (agency constituted in the common interest of principal and agent, or in the interest of a third person who has accepted the stipulation in his favor) and Article 1931 (act done by the agent without knowledge of the death or other extinguishing cause, valid as to third persons who contracted with him in good faith).
Article 1930 was excluded on the admitted fact that the power was not coupled with an interest.
Step 6 — Element-by-element application of Article 1931. The Court states the provision's two requisites and maps them: "an act done by the agent after the death of his principal is valid and effective only under two conditions, viz: (1) that the agent acted without knowledge of the death of the principal and (2) that the third person who contracted with the agent himself acted in good faith. Good faith here means that the third person was not aware of the death of the principal at the time he contracted with said agent. These two requisites must concur the absence of one will render the act of the agent invalid and unenforceable."
Requisite (1) — NOT MET: "it cannot be questioned that the agent, Simeon Rallos, knew of the death of his principal at the time he sold the latter's share," this being a finding of both courts below and inferable from his own pleadings.
Requisite (2) — the corporation's good faith was assumed, but its presence could not cure the absence of the first: "The law expressly requires for its application lack of knowledge on the part of the agent of the death of his principal; it is not enough that the third person acted in good faith."
The Court contrasted Buason & Reyes v. Panuyas and Herrera v. Luy Kim Guan, where the sales were upheld precisely "because it was not shown that the agent knew of his principal's demise."
Step 7 — Strict construction of the exception. "That being the general rule it follows a fortiori that any act of an agent after the death of his principal is void ab initio unless the same fa[ll]s under the exception provided for in the aforementioned Articles 1930 and 1931. Article 1931, being an exception to the general rule, is to be strictly construed, it is not to be given an interpretation or application beyond the clear import of its terms for otherwise the courts will be involved in a process of legislation outside of their judicial function."
Step 8 — Rejection of the revocation-by-act and innocent-purchaser analogies. The Manresa passage on publicizing revocation "treats of revocation by an act of the principal as a mode of terminating an agency which is to be distinguished from revocation by operation of law such as death of the principal"
And while "a revocation of a power of attorney to be effective must be communicated to the parties concerned" under Article 1921–Article 1922, "a revocation by operation of law, such as by death of the principal is, as a rule, instantaneously effective inasmuch as 'by legal fiction the agent's exercise of authority is regarded as an execution of the principal's continuing will.' With death, the principal's will ceases."
Blondeau was distinguished as resting on Section 55 of Act No. 496, and as not involving an agent who sold with full knowledge of his principal's death.

B. Doctrines / Rules / Principles Laid Down

Elements of a contract of agency (the doctrinal takeaway for this Topic/Subtopic), anchored on Article 1868 and Article 1881. Verbatim:

"The essential elements of agency are: (1) there is consent, express or implied of the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agents acts as a representative and not for himself, and (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority."
Character of the relation. Verbatim:

"Agency is basically personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The authority of the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal; his act is the act of the principal if done within the scope of the authority. Qui facit per alium facit se."
No one may contract for another without authority (Article 1317, Article 1403(1)). A contract entered into in the name of another by one without authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, is unenforceable unless ratified before revocation by the other contracting party.
Extinguishment by death (Article 1919(3)), and its rationale in representation. Verbatim: "By reason of the very nature of the relationship between Principal and agent, agency is extinguished by the death of the principal or the agent. This is the law in this jurisdiction." The rationale, adopting Manresa: "the rationale for the law is found in the juridical basis of agency which is representation."
The two exceptions and the conjunctive requisites of Article 1931. Verbatim:

"[A]n act done by the agent after the death of his principal is valid and effective only under two conditions, viz: (1) that the agent acted without knowledge of the death of the principal and (2) that the third person who contracted with the agent himself acted in good faith. ... These two requisites must concur the absence of one will render the act of the agent invalid and unenforceable."
Strict construction of Article 1931. Verbatim: "Article 1931, being an exception to the general rule, is to be strictly construed, it is not to be given an interpretation or application beyond the clear import of its terms."
No duty on the heirs of the principal to notify the agent (Article 1932). The Code's notice duty runs the other way — from the heirs of a deceased agent to the principal.
Revocation by act of the principal distinguished from revocation by operation of law (Article 1921–Article 1922). The former must be communicated to be effective; the latter is instantaneously effective.

C. Distinctions / Limitations / Qualifications

This is not a case where the elements of agency were found wanting. The 1954 special power of attorney was valid and unquestioned. The decision therefore teaches the elements definitionally and by extension, not by adjudication — a limitation expressly reflected in the ANALOGOUS classification in Section I.
The general rule of extinguishment by death is expressly limited by two, and only two, statutory exceptions — Article 1930 and Article 1931 — and the second is to be strictly construed.
The good faith of the third person is not an independent ground of validity. The Court's holding is categorical: "it is not enough that the third person acted in good faith." This is the precise point on which the Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
The Court expressly distinguishes the innocent-purchaser-for-value doctrine of Blondeau v. Nano and Section 55 of Act No. 496, and the Manresa discussion of publicizing a revocation, as inapplicable to revocation by operation of law.
Cassiday v. McKenzie, relied on by the respondent, is expressly noted by the Court to "represent[] the minority view in American jurisprudence," and in any event to have been premised on the parties' ignorance of the death — the very fact absent here.
The relief obtained is limited to Concepcion's one-half pro-indiviso share; the sale of Gerundia's share, she being then alive, was unaffected.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory)

The classification is ANALOGOUS.
For subtopic (d), Rallos is the canonical Philippine source of the four-element formulation — the very enumeration later adopted verbatim in [Eurotech v.
Cuizon](/agency-trust-partnership/week-01/eurotech-v-cuizon) (through Yu Eng Cho) and in [Sps. Viloria v.
Continental Airlines](/agency-trust-partnership/week-01/sps-viloria-v-continental-airlines), which quotes Rallos by name.
Its distinctive pedagogical value, however, lies in showing that the elements are not inert definitions: the Court takes the third element — that the agent acts as a representative — and works it into the operative reason why the agency dies with the principal.
Because representation entails an integration of the principal's personality into the agent's, and because the agent's authority is derivative of a will that death has extinguished, the relation cannot survive; hence Article 1919(3).
Students should therefore cite Rallos for the elements, but must be precise that the Court did not apply the elements to test the existence of an agency on these facts.
It applied the nature those elements give the relation to resolve a question of extinguishment.
Conversely, the case must not be recited as though its holding were about the elements: its holding is that Article 1931 requires the agent's lack of knowledge of the death, and that the third person's good faith alone will not save the transaction.

VII. Separate Opinions

None. The Decision was penned by Muñoz Palma, J., with Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concurring. No separate concurring or dissenting opinion appears in the record.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Civil Code

Article 1919, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

Agency is extinguished:

(1) By its revocation;

(2) By the withdrawal of the agent;

(3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent;

(4) By the dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrusted or accepted the agency;

(5) By the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the agency;

(6) By the expiration of the period for which the agency was constituted. (1732a)

Why it is cited here

The list of modes by which agency is extinguished, and paragraph (3) — "[b]y the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent" — is the one that decides this case.

Read it as a statement about why agency ends, not merely when. Agency is a relationship of representation: the agent's acts are in law the acts of the principal. When the principal dies there is no longer a person whose acts these could be, so the relationship lapses ipso jure — automatically, by operation of law, without notice to anyone and without any act of revocation.

That automatic quality is the point students most often miss. There is no moment at which the agency continues pending notice; it is over at the instant of death, and everything the agent does afterwards is done for a principal who no longer exists.

Civil Code

Article 1930, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

The agency shall remain in full force and effect even after the death of the principal, if it has been constituted in the common interest of the latter and of the agent, or in the interest of a third person who has accepted the stipulation in his favor. (n)

Why it is cited here

The genuine exception, offered here for contrast with Article 1931 because the two are easily confused.

"The agency shall remain in full force and effect even after the death of the principal, if it has been constituted in the common interest of the latter and of the agent, or in the interest of a third person who has accepted the stipulation in his favor."

This is an agency coupled with an interest — the agent is not merely serving the principal but protecting a stake of his own, so the principal's death does not remove the reason for the authority. It is the only situation in which the agency truly survives death.

Nothing of the kind existed in this case, which is why the transaction had to be defended under Article 1931 instead — a much weaker footing, because Article 1931 does not keep the agency alive at all.

Civil Code

Article 1931, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

Anything done by the agent, without knowledge of the death of the principal or of any other cause which extinguishes the agency, is valid and shall be fully effective with respect to third persons who may have contracted with him in good faith. (1738)

Why it is cited here

The provision the buyer relied on, and the case is a lesson in reading its two requirements as cumulative.

"Anything done by the agent, without knowledge of the death of the principal or of any other cause which extinguishes the agency, is valid and shall be fully effective with respect to third persons who may have contracted with him in good faith."

Two conditions, and both must hold: the agent must have acted without knowledge of the death, and the third person must have contracted in good faith. Here the agent knew his principal had died. That alone defeats the article, whatever the buyer knew or believed — the buyer's good faith cannot supply the agent's ignorance.

Note also what the article does and does not do. It never revives the agency; Article 1919 has already ended it. Article 1931 only protects a particular transaction from the consequences of that ending, and only when both parties to it were innocent. Absent the protection, the agent's act after death is void as to the deceased's interest.

Civil Code

Article 1868, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 1 (Nature, Form and Kinds of Agency)

By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. (1709a)

Why it is cited here

The definition supplying the premise the whole chain rests on: the agent acts "in representation or on behalf of another."

Representation is why death matters so much more in agency than in most contracts. A contractor's obligation survives the other party's death and is enforced against the estate, because the contractor acts for himself. An agent acts as the principal — so the principal's death does not leave an obligation behind, it removes the person the agent was standing in for.

Related notes: Article 1317 · Article 1403 · Article 1868 · Article 1881 · Article 1919 · Article 1930 · Article 1931 · Article 1932 · Elements of Agency · Representation · Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se · Agency Coupled with an Interest · Eurotech v. Cuizon · Bordador v. Luz · Sps. Viloria v. Continental Airlines

Source: Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation, G.R. No. L-24332, 31 January 1978

Cited laws & provisions

Article 1919, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

Agency is extinguished:

(1) By its revocation;

(2) By the withdrawal of the agent;

(3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent;

(4) By the dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrusted or accepted the agency;

(5) By the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the agency;

(6) By the expiration of the period for which the agency was constituted. (1732a)

Why it is cited here

Full entry below ↓

Article 1930, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

Why it is cited here

The genuine exception, offered here for contrast with Article 1931 because the two are easily confused.

Full entry below ↓

Article 1931, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

Why it is cited here

The provision the buyer relied on, and the case is a lesson in reading its two requirements as cumulative.

Full entry below ↓

Article 1868, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 1 (Nature, Form and Kinds of Agency)

By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. (1709a)

Why it is cited here

The definition supplying the premise the whole chain rests on: the agent acts "in representation or on behalf of another."

Full entry below ↓

Facts

Sisters Concepcion Rallos and Gerundia Rallos (the principals) were registered co-owners in equal shares of a parcel of land in Cebu City. On April 21, 1954, they executed a special power of attorney in favor of their brother, Simeon Rallos (the agent), authorizing him to sell the property. (Lot No. 5983 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu, under TCT No. 11116. The power was duly registered on the certificate of title and was admittedly not coupled with an interest.)
Concepcion died on March 3, 1955.
On September 12, 1955 — more than six months after her death — Simeon sold the undivided shares of both sisters to respondent Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation for ₱10,686. (₱10,686.90, and every court found that Simeon knew his sister was dead: he "proceeded with the sale of the lot in the name of both his sisters ... without informing appellant of the death of the former." Neither had the heirs annotated her death on the title.)
A new transfer certificate of title was issued in the buyer's name. (TCT No. 11118 was cancelled and TCT No. 12989 issued to the corporation.)
Ramon Rallos, as administrator of Concepcion's estate, sued to recover her one-half share, praying that the sale be declared void as to that portion. (Civil Case No. R-4530, filed 18 May 1956 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Simeon and Gerundia both died while the case was pending and were substituted by the administrators of their estates.)
Court of First Instance — for the estate. The Court of First Instance ruled for the estate.
Court of Appeals — reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, sustaining the sale on the theory that the buyer had acted in good faith and that no notice of Concepcion's death had been given.
Before the Supreme Court. The administrator brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the sale of Concepcion Rallos' undivided share, executed by her attorney-in-fact after her death, is valid as against a purchaser who acted in good faith.

Ruling

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The sale was void insofar as it covered Concepcion's one-half share, which was ordered reconveyed to her estate.

Ratio

1. The Nature and Basis of Agency: Representation

The Court began from first principles.
By the relationship of agency, one person — the agent — is derivatively authorized to act for and on behalf of another, the principal.
Its essential characteristics are that it is (a) consensual, (b) preparatory, since it exists to conclude other juridical acts, (c) onerous as a rule, (d) nominate and bilateral, and above all (e) representative: qui facit per alium facit per se — he who acts through another acts himself.
The agent's acts, within the scope of authority, are in contemplation of law the acts of the principal.

2. Death Extinguishes the Agency by Operation of Law

Because agency is founded on representation and on the personal trust the principal reposes in the agent, it is extinguished by the death of either (Art. 1919 [3]).
The extinguishment operates ipso jure — automatically and without need of notice or of any act by the parties.
Simeon's authority therefore expired on March 3, 1955.
When he executed the deed in September, he had no principal to represent: Concepcion's rights had already passed to her heirs.

3. The Exceptions Do Not Apply

Two provisions temper the rule, and the Court examined both:
Article 1930 keeps an agency alive after death where it "has been constituted in the common interest" of principal and agent, or in the interest of a third person who accepted the stipulation. This power of attorney was an ordinary one, created solely in the sisters' interest — it was not coupled with an interest.
Article 1931 validates the agent's post-mortem act where two requisites concur: the agent acted without knowledge of the death, and the third person contracted with him in good faith. Here the first requisite failed outright. The Court of Appeals itself found that Simeon knew his sister had died. Good faith on the buyer's part cannot supply the missing element; the article demands both.

4. Good Faith Cannot Create Authority That Has Ceased to Exist

The Court rejected the notion that the buyer's innocence and the absence of an annotation on the title could validate the sale.
Article 1931 is an exception and must be construed strictly.
Nor could the buyer invoke the Torrens system: what it acquired from an agent whose authority had lapsed was, as to Concepcion's share, nothing at all.
Its remedy lies against Simeon Rallos.

Doctrine

Agency is representation. Its defining feature is that the agent acts for and in the name of the principal, so that the legal consequences attach to the principal.
Death extinguishes agency ipso jure. No notice, no revocation, and no act of the parties is required; the authority simply ceases. Acts done afterwards are void as to the deceased principal's interest.
The Article 1931 exception is conjunctive. It protects the transaction only where the agent was ignorant of the death and the third person acted in good faith. Where the agent knew, the sale cannot stand no matter how innocent the buyer.
Article 1930 requires a true common interest. An agency survives death only if constituted in the common interest of principal and agent or of a third person who accepted the stipulation — not merely because it was convenient or irrevocable in form.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Full-length digest in the format required by the course digest prompt.

Classification: ANALOGOUS · Ponente: Muñoz Palma, J. · G.R. No. L-24332, 31 January 1978

TOPIC/SUBTOPIC FOCUS: Week 1 — Nature, Objective, & Kinds of Agency: (d) Elements of a contract of agency.

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts and Procedural Events

Concepcion and Gerundia, both surnamed Rallos, were sisters and registered co-owners of Lot No. 5983 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11116 of the Registry of Cebu.
On 21 April 1954, the sisters executed a special power of attorney in favor of their brother, Simeon Rallos, authorizing him to sell for and in their behalf Lot 5983. The power of attorney was duly registered on the original certificate of title recorded in the Register of Deeds of Cebu. It was admittedly not coupled with an interest.
On 3 March 1955, Concepcion Rallos died.
On 12 September 1955, Simeon Rallos — who, as found by the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, knew of his sister's death — sold the undivided shares of both Concepcion and Gerundia in Lot 5983 to Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation for ₱10,686.90. The deed of sale was registered; TCT No. 11118 was cancelled and TCT No. 12989 was issued in the name of the vendee. Simeon "proceeded with the sale of the lot in the name of both his sisters Concepcion and Gerundia Rallos without informing appellant (the realty corporation) of the death of the former." No notice of Concepcion's death was ever annotated on the certificate of title by her heirs.
On 18 May 1956, Ramon Rallos, as administrator of the Intestate Estate of Concepcion Rallos, filed a complaint (Civil Case No. R-4530, Court of First Instance of Cebu) praying that the sale of Concepcion's undivided share be declared unenforceable and the share reconveyed to her estate; that TCT No. 12989 be cancelled and a new title issued in the names of the corporation and the Intestate Estate of Concepcion Rallos in equal undivided shares; and for attorney's fees and costs. Named defendants were Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation, Simeon Rallos, and the Register of Deeds of Cebu, the last of whom was subsequently dropped.
The complaint was amended twice. The defendant corporation's Answer contained a cross-claim against its co-defendant Simeon Rallos, who in turn filed a third-party complaint against his sister Gerundia Rallos.
While the case was pending in the trial court, both Simeon and Gerundia died and were substituted by the respective administrators of their estates — Juan T. Borromeo for Simeon's estate and Josefina Rallos, special administratrix, for Gerundia's.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Cebu, through Hon. Amador E. Gomez, rendered judgment: on the complaint, declaring the deed of sale null and void insofar as Concepcion's one-half pro-indiviso share is concerned, ordering cancellation of TCT No. 12989 and issuance of a new title in the names of the corporation and the Estate of Concepcion Rallos in equal pro-indiviso shares, ordering delivery of possession of the undivided one-half share to plaintiff, sentencing Simeon's administrator to pay ₱1,000.00 attorney's fees, and ordering both defendants to pay costs jointly and severally; on the cross-claim, sentencing Simeon's administrator to pay the corporation ₱5,343.45 representing the price of the one-half share plus ₱500.00 attorney's fees; and dismissing the third-party complaint without prejudice.
Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals insofar as the judgment set aside the sale of Concepcion's one-half share.
On 20 November 1964, the Court of Appeals resolved the appeal in favor of the appellant corporation, sustaining the sale on the reasoning that the corporation had acted in good faith, that no provision of the Code declares void an act of an agent done with knowledge of the principal's death as against a good-faith third person, and that the heirs must suffer the consequences of their failure to annotate the death on the title.
On 4 March 1965, the Court of Appeals denied the administrator's motion for reconsideration.
On 31 January 1978, the Supreme Court rendered its Decision on the Petition for Review on certiorari.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Ramon Rallos, Administrator of the Estate of Concepcion Rallos)

B. Respondent (Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation)

C. Common Ground / Stipulations

IV. Issues

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered)

B. Secondary Issues

Whether or not the sale executed by Simeon Rallos after the death of his principal falls within the exception in Article 1930 (agency constituted in the common interest of principal and agent, or in the interest of a third person who accepted the stipulation).
Whether or not the sale falls within the exception in Article 1931, that is, whether the good faith of the third person alone suffices where the agent acted with knowledge of the principal's death.
Whether or not the heirs' failure to annotate the principal's death on the certificate of title, coupled with the registration of the power of attorney and the vendee's good faith, validates the sale under the Blondeau line of cases and Section 55 of the Land Registration Law.

C. Ancillary / Incidental Issues

V. Ruling / Disposition (Categorical, Issue-Mapped)

SECONDARY ISSUE 1 — NO. "Article 1930 is not involved because admittedly the special power of attorney executed in favor of Simeon Rallos was not coupled with an interest."

DISPOSITIVE PORTION (VERBATIM):

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, We set aside the ecision [sic] of respondent appellate court, and We affirm en toto the judgment rendered by then Hon. Amador E. Gomez of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, quoted in pages 2 and 3 of this Opinion, with costs against respondent realty corporation at all instances. So Ordered.

(Note: the decretal orders thus affirmed en toto are those of the trial court reproduced in Section II, item 8 above.)

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines (Topic-Focused)

A. Ratio Decidendi (Decisive Reasoning)

Step 1 — The Court begins from Article 1317 and Article 1403(1), the general prohibition on contracting for another without authority. "It is a basic axiom in civil law embodied in our Civil Code that no one may contract in the name of another without being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him. A contract entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or the legal representation or who has acted beyond his powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been executed, before it is revoked by the other contracting party."
The Court quotes Article 1403(1) in full.
Step 2 — Out of that axiom the Court derives the agency relation and states its four essential elements. Verbatim: "Out of the above given principles, sprung the creation and acceptance of the relationship of agency whereby one party, caged [called] the principal (mandante), authorizes another, called the agent (mandatario), to act for and in his behalf in transactions with third persons. The essential elements of agency are: (1) there is consent, express or implied of the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agents acts as a representative and not for himself, and (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority."
The Court footnotes this to Article 1868 and Article 1881, together with 11 Manresa 422-423, 4 Sanchez Roman 478, 26 Scaevola 243, 262, and Tolentino, vol. 5, p. 340.
Step 3 — The Court characterizes the relation, and this characterization is the hinge of the case. Verbatim: "Agency is basically personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The authority of the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal; his act is the act of the principal if done within the scope of the authority. Qui facit per alium facit se. 'He who acts through another acts himself.'"
Step 4 — From that characterization the Court derives the rule of extinguishment by death (Article 1919(3)). "By reason of the very nature of the relationship between Principal and agent, agency is extinguished by the death of the principal or the agent."
The Court supplies the doctrinal reason from Manresa: "the rationale for the law is found in the juridical basis of agency which is representation. Them [There] being an in[t]egration of the personality of the principal integration that of the agent it is not possible for the representation to continue to exist once the death of either is establish[ed]."
Pothier and Laurent are cited to the same effect, the latter for the proposition that "the juridical tie between the principal and the agent is severed ipso jure upon the death of either without necessity for the heirs of the fact to notify the agent of the fact of death of the former."
The Court notes the same rule at common law and in American jurisprudence.
Step 5 — The Court identifies the two, and only two, statutory exceptions. Article 1930 (agency constituted in the common interest of principal and agent, or in the interest of a third person who has accepted the stipulation in his favor) and Article 1931 (act done by the agent without knowledge of the death or other extinguishing cause, valid as to third persons who contracted with him in good faith).
Article 1930 was excluded on the admitted fact that the power was not coupled with an interest.
Step 6 — Element-by-element application of Article 1931. The Court states the provision's two requisites and maps them: "an act done by the agent after the death of his principal is valid and effective only under two conditions, viz: (1) that the agent acted without knowledge of the death of the principal and (2) that the third person who contracted with the agent himself acted in good faith. Good faith here means that the third person was not aware of the death of the principal at the time he contracted with said agent. These two requisites must concur the absence of one will render the act of the agent invalid and unenforceable."
Requisite (1) — NOT MET: "it cannot be questioned that the agent, Simeon Rallos, knew of the death of his principal at the time he sold the latter's share," this being a finding of both courts below and inferable from his own pleadings.
Requisite (2) — the corporation's good faith was assumed, but its presence could not cure the absence of the first: "The law expressly requires for its application lack of knowledge on the part of the agent of the death of his principal; it is not enough that the third person acted in good faith."
The Court contrasted Buason & Reyes v. Panuyas and Herrera v. Luy Kim Guan, where the sales were upheld precisely "because it was not shown that the agent knew of his principal's demise."
Step 7 — Strict construction of the exception. "That being the general rule it follows a fortiori that any act of an agent after the death of his principal is void ab initio unless the same fa[ll]s under the exception provided for in the aforementioned Articles 1930 and 1931. Article 1931, being an exception to the general rule, is to be strictly construed, it is not to be given an interpretation or application beyond the clear import of its terms for otherwise the courts will be involved in a process of legislation outside of their judicial function."
Step 8 — Rejection of the revocation-by-act and innocent-purchaser analogies. The Manresa passage on publicizing revocation "treats of revocation by an act of the principal as a mode of terminating an agency which is to be distinguished from revocation by operation of law such as death of the principal"
And while "a revocation of a power of attorney to be effective must be communicated to the parties concerned" under Article 1921–Article 1922, "a revocation by operation of law, such as by death of the principal is, as a rule, instantaneously effective inasmuch as 'by legal fiction the agent's exercise of authority is regarded as an execution of the principal's continuing will.' With death, the principal's will ceases."
Blondeau was distinguished as resting on Section 55 of Act No. 496, and as not involving an agent who sold with full knowledge of his principal's death.

B. Doctrines / Rules / Principles Laid Down

Elements of a contract of agency (the doctrinal takeaway for this Topic/Subtopic), anchored on Article 1868 and Article 1881. Verbatim:

"The essential elements of agency are: (1) there is consent, express or implied of the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agents acts as a representative and not for himself, and (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority."
Character of the relation. Verbatim:

"Agency is basically personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The authority of the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal; his act is the act of the principal if done within the scope of the authority. Qui facit per alium facit se."
No one may contract for another without authority (Article 1317, Article 1403(1)). A contract entered into in the name of another by one without authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, is unenforceable unless ratified before revocation by the other contracting party.
Extinguishment by death (Article 1919(3)), and its rationale in representation. Verbatim: "By reason of the very nature of the relationship between Principal and agent, agency is extinguished by the death of the principal or the agent. This is the law in this jurisdiction." The rationale, adopting Manresa: "the rationale for the law is found in the juridical basis of agency which is representation."
The two exceptions and the conjunctive requisites of Article 1931. Verbatim:

"[A]n act done by the agent after the death of his principal is valid and effective only under two conditions, viz: (1) that the agent acted without knowledge of the death of the principal and (2) that the third person who contracted with the agent himself acted in good faith. ... These two requisites must concur the absence of one will render the act of the agent invalid and unenforceable."
Strict construction of Article 1931. Verbatim: "Article 1931, being an exception to the general rule, is to be strictly construed, it is not to be given an interpretation or application beyond the clear import of its terms."
No duty on the heirs of the principal to notify the agent (Article 1932). The Code's notice duty runs the other way — from the heirs of a deceased agent to the principal.
Revocation by act of the principal distinguished from revocation by operation of law (Article 1921–Article 1922). The former must be communicated to be effective; the latter is instantaneously effective.

C. Distinctions / Limitations / Qualifications

This is not a case where the elements of agency were found wanting. The 1954 special power of attorney was valid and unquestioned. The decision therefore teaches the elements definitionally and by extension, not by adjudication — a limitation expressly reflected in the ANALOGOUS classification in Section I.
The general rule of extinguishment by death is expressly limited by two, and only two, statutory exceptions — Article 1930 and Article 1931 — and the second is to be strictly construed.
The good faith of the third person is not an independent ground of validity. The Court's holding is categorical: "it is not enough that the third person acted in good faith." This is the precise point on which the Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
The Court expressly distinguishes the innocent-purchaser-for-value doctrine of Blondeau v. Nano and Section 55 of Act No. 496, and the Manresa discussion of publicizing a revocation, as inapplicable to revocation by operation of law.
Cassiday v. McKenzie, relied on by the respondent, is expressly noted by the Court to "represent[] the minority view in American jurisprudence," and in any event to have been premised on the parties' ignorance of the death — the very fact absent here.
The relief obtained is limited to Concepcion's one-half pro-indiviso share; the sale of Gerundia's share, she being then alive, was unaffected.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory)

The classification is ANALOGOUS.
For subtopic (d), Rallos is the canonical Philippine source of the four-element formulation — the very enumeration later adopted verbatim in [Eurotech v.
Cuizon](/agency-trust-partnership/week-01/eurotech-v-cuizon) (through Yu Eng Cho) and in [Sps. Viloria v.
Continental Airlines](/agency-trust-partnership/week-01/sps-viloria-v-continental-airlines), which quotes Rallos by name.
Its distinctive pedagogical value, however, lies in showing that the elements are not inert definitions: the Court takes the third element — that the agent acts as a representative — and works it into the operative reason why the agency dies with the principal.
Because representation entails an integration of the principal's personality into the agent's, and because the agent's authority is derivative of a will that death has extinguished, the relation cannot survive; hence Article 1919(3).
Students should therefore cite Rallos for the elements, but must be precise that the Court did not apply the elements to test the existence of an agency on these facts.
It applied the nature those elements give the relation to resolve a question of extinguishment.
Conversely, the case must not be recited as though its holding were about the elements: its holding is that Article 1931 requires the agent's lack of knowledge of the death, and that the third person's good faith alone will not save the transaction.