Week 2 Coverage Table
The table below mirrors the syllabus list for August 12, 2026. Entries marked supra were assigned in an earlier week; because the professor assigns them here for a different sub-holding, each has its own Week 2 digest that re-angles the case and cross-links back to the Week 1 page.
Class. records how the case actually stands to the subtopic it was assigned under — DIRECT (the Court squarely applies the doctrine), ANALOGOUS (it decides the point under a different provision or doctrine), REJECTED (the Court found the doctrine not established), INCIDENTAL (the doctrine is mentioned but the disposition rests elsewhere). Reciting a REJECTED case as if it were DIRECT inverts the holding.
| # | Assigned Case | Topic/Subtopic | Class. | Digest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Equitable PCI-Bank v. Ku, G.R. No. 142950, March 26, 2001 | a. How agency is constituted (Arts. 1869-1872; cf: Art. 1317) | INCIDENTAL | |
| 2 | Gonzales-Saldana v. Spouses Niamatali, G.R. No. 226587, November 21, 2018 | a. How agency is constituted (Arts. 1869-1872; cf: Art. 1317) | DIRECT | |
| 3 | Silva v. Lo, G.R. No. 206667, June 23, 2021 | b. Perfection of the contract of agency as it affects third persons (Art. 1873; cf: Art. 1911) | ANALOGOUS | |
| 4 | Litonjua, Jr. v. Eternit Corp., G.R. No. 144805, June 8, 2006, supra | b. Perfection of the contract of agency as it affects third persons (Art. 1873; cf: Art. 1911) | REJECTED | |
| 5 | Angeles v. Philippine National Railways, supra | c. Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent (Arts. 1874; 1878-1880) — Form of agency (Art. 1869, par. 2) | DIRECT | |
| 6 | AF Realty & Development, Inc. v. Dieselman Freight Services Co., G.R. No. 111448, January 16, 2002 | c. Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent (Arts. 1874; 1878-1880) — Sale of land through an agent (Art. 1874) | DIRECT | |
| 7 | Spouses Bautista v. Spouses Jalandoni & Manila Credit Corp.; Manila Credit Corp. v. Spouses Jalandoni & Spouses Bautista, G.R. Nos. 171464 & 199341, November 27, 2013 | c. Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent (Arts. 1874; 1878-1880) — Sale of land through an agent (Art. 1874) | DIRECT | |
| 8 | Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Unchuan, G.R. No. 182537, June 1, 2016 | c. Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent (Arts. 1874; 1878-1880) — Sale of land through an agent (Art. 1874) | DIRECT | |
| 9 | Alfiler v. Spouses Cayabyab, G.R. No. 217111, March 13, 2023 | c. Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent (Arts. 1874; 1878-1880) — Sale of land through an agent (Art. 1874) | DIRECT | |
| 10 | Dominion Insurance Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 129919, February 6, 2002 | c. Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent (Arts. 1874; 1878-1880) — When special power of attorney required (Art. 1878) | DIRECT | |
| 11 | San Miguel Corporation v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 237506, July 28, 2020 | c. Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent (Arts. 1874; 1878-1880) — Power to sell and power to mortgage (Art. 1879) | ANALOGOUS | |
| 12 | The Commoner Lending Corp. v. Spouses Villanueva, G.R. No. 235260, August 27, 2020 | c. Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent (Arts. 1874; 1878-1880) — Power to sell and power to mortgage (Art. 1879) | ANALOGOUS |
Recitation Map
One line per case — what it is for, and the categorical holding.
| Case | What it is for | Categorical holding |
|---|---|---|
| Equitable PCI Bank v. Ku | Implied constitution; the two codal texts of subtopic (a) | Facts "inadequate" to show no agency; petition granted anyway on suspension of the rules |
| Gonzales-Saldana v. Niamatali | The clean Week 2(a) authority; agency inferred "from all the dealings" | Implied agency existed "for the purpose of purchasing the Las Piñas property"; agent acted beyond it |
| Silva v. Lo | Revocation not communicated to the agent | Principal "continued to clothe" agent with apparent authority; and impliedly ratified under Art. 1317 par. 2 |
| Litonjua v. Eternit (Wk 2) | Three-element test for agency by estoppel | No estoppel — "[s]uch proof is lacking"; agents spoke for ESAC, not EC |
| Angeles v. PNR (Wk 2) | General rule of form; office of a power of attorney | Letter sufficient as a power of attorney; but strictly construed — "to withdraw" ≠ to sue |
| AF Realty v. Dieselman | Art. 1874 nullity; no ratification | Sale void; ₱300,000 "earnest money" did not cure it; nemo dat down the broker chain |
| Sps. Bautista v. Sps. Jalandoni | Art. 1874 + Art. 1878(5); buyer's peril | Sale void; buyers not in good faith for failing to demand the SPA |
| MCIAA v. Unchuan | Dizon content standard; durability of the nullity | Void as to non-signing co-owners; valid as to Atanacio's own pro indiviso share (Art. 493) |
| Alfiler v. Sps. Cayabyab | The SPA must be offered in evidence | Deed void ab initio; ejectment complaint dismissed for want of any right of possession |
| Dominion Insurance v. CA | General v. special agency; acts of administration | A document titled "Special Power of Attorney" was a general agency; settling claims needed a special power |
| SMC v. Trinidad | Scope of a special power over an immovable | "To offer as collateral" is authority to mortgage; owners bound also by apparent authority |
| Commoner Lending v. Villanueva | Special power to sell in extrajudicial foreclosure | Paragraph 3 "sufficiently incorporated" the special power to sell; foreclosure valid |
Threads to Carry into Recitation
💡 The general rule, in the Court’s own words
No form is required. Angeles v. PNR: "In the absence of statute, no form or method of execution is required for a valid power of attorney; it may be in any form clearly showing on its face the agent's authority," and "a power of attorney is valid although no notary public intervened in its execution." Litonjua v. Eternit states the codal source: "Agency may be oral unless the law requires a specific form" (Art. 1869, par. 2). Everything else in Week 2 is an exception to this sentence.
ℹ️ Why the writing exists at all
Angeles v. PNR supplies the conceptual key: a power of attorney's "primary purpose is not to define the authority of the agent as between himself and his principal but to evidence the authority of the agent to third parties with whom the agent deals." The writing is evidentiary and outward-facing — which is why the law can dispense with it as a rule and demand it exactly where third persons and the registry need protection (Arts. 1874, 1878).
⚡ The price of informality is strict construction
Two matched pairs. Angeles v. PNR: form relaxed, but "[a] power of attorney must be strictly construed and pursued. The instrument will be held to grant only those powers which are specified therein" — authority "to withdraw" was not authority to sue. Gonzales-Saldana: no writing needed, but the agency was bounded by its object, and good faith did not enlarge it — "she acted outside the scope of the authority given to her, i.e., to purchase the Las Piñas property."
⚡ Nomenclature never controls — Week 2’s version
Week 1 taught that a document's label does not determine whether an agency exists. Week 2 teaches that it does not determine what kind. Dominion Insurance: "Despite the word 'special' in the title of the document, the contents reveal that what was constituted was actually a general agency" — and under Art. 1877 a general agency "is limited only to acts of administration," however sweeping the words. Conversely, Commoner Lending: "no particular formality is required in the creation of the power of sale. Any words are sufficient which evince an intention that the sale may be made upon default."
💡 The Art. 1874 checklist — assembled from four cases
The authority to sell land through an agent must be: (1) existing and traceable to the owner — a sub-agent's power is only as good as his appointer's, "a spring cannot rise higher than its source" (AF Realty); (2) in writing (Art. 1874); (3) special, i.e. within Art. 1878(5) or (12) (Sps. Bautista); (4) clear — "a power of attorney must so express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language[; w]hen there is any reasonable doubt … no such construction shall be given the document" (Dizon, adopted in MCIAA v. Unchuan); (5) actually offered in evidence — otherwise the law presumes there is none (Alfiler); and (6) it cannot be supplied afterwards, the sale being void and not merely unenforceable (AF Realty; MCIAA).
⚡ Void, not unenforceable — the single most examinable distinction in Week 2
Art. 1317 par. 2 makes an unauthorized contract unenforceable and ratifiable. Art. 1874 makes a land sale through an unauthorized agent void, and Art. 1409(7) says void contracts "cannot be ratified." AF Realty rejected ratification although the seller's own president acknowledged ₱300,000 as "earnest money"; MCIAA v. Unchuan rejected it although the co-owners twice signed public instruments confirming the sale, and added that under Art. 1410 the action to declare the nullity "does not prescribe" — fifty-eight years later. Contrast Silva v. Lo, where Art. 1317 par. 2 did apply and silence ratified the act.
ℹ️ Subtopic (b) in one sentence, from the two cases that frame it
The outward face of an agency is the principal's responsibility to build and to dismantle. In Silva v. Lo the principal had spoken and then revoked in secret — bound. In Litonjua v. Eternit the principal never spoke at all, and months of negotiation plus a US$1,000,000 escrow deposit could not supply element (1) of the estoppel test — not bound. Memorise the test: "(1) the principal manifested a representation of the agent's authority or knowingly allowed the agent to assume such authority; (2) the third person, in good faith, relied upon such representation; (3) relying upon such representation, such third person has changed his position to his detriment," plus proof "that the representations predated the action taken in reliance."
⚡ Topic-fidelity flag — three cases do not cite the article the syllabus assigns them
Silva v. Lo never cites Art. 1873 or Art. 1911; SMC v. Trinidad and Commoner Lending never cite Art. 1879. Each digest says so expressly and classifies the case ANALOGOUS. If asked "what did the Court hold under Art. 1879?", the correct answer begins by noting that the Court decided the scope question under Art. 1878 and the rules of contract interpretation instead.
💡 The duty of the third person — quoted three ways
Litonjua v. Eternit: "persons dealing with an assumed agent are bound at their peril … to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of authority." Sps. Bautista repeats it and adds that "Eliseo's claim that he did not require Nasino to give him a copy of the special power of attorney because he trusted her is unacceptable." But note the counterweight in SMC v. Trinidad: under Arts. 1900 and 1902, a third person who does read the written power takes it at face value, and "[p]rivate or secret orders and instructions of the principal do not prejudice third persons."
ℹ️ The two mortgage cases, read against each other
SMC v. Trinidad: a power "to offer as collateral" is a power to mortgage, reinforced by repeated delivery of the original owner's duplicate titles ("as between two innocent persons … the one who made it possible by his act of confidence must bear the loss"). Commoner Lending: a clause appointing the mortgagee attorney-in-fact "to take any legal action as may be necessary to satisfy the mortgage debt" is a special power to sell — expressly distinguished from Sps. Baysa v. Sps. Plantilla, where a bare agreement "to the extra-judicial foreclosure" was only "a mere expression of … amenability" and conferred no power to sell. The line is the appointment of an attorney-in-fact.
ℹ️ Where Week 2 hands off to Weeks 3-6
Gonzales-Saldana already runs into scope of authority (Week 3, Art. 1881). Dominion Insurance runs into Art. 1918(1) — no reimbursement where the agent contravenes instructions (Week 5). SMC v. Trinidad runs into Art. 1911 solidary liability (Week 5). Silva v. Lo and Alfiler run into extinguishment (Week 6): the latter states Art. 1919(3) with its two exceptions, Arts. 1930 and 1931, citing Rallos v. Felix Go Chan.
Study Notes
Form is generally free — until it isn't. Article 1869 lets an agency be express or implied, oral or written; Equitable PCI-Bank shows an agency arising from nothing more than a lawyer's tolerated practice of letting a building employee receive his mail. Article 1874 is the sharp exception: when the sale of land or any interest in it is made through an agent, the agent's authority must be in writing, and a sale made without it is void — not merely unenforceable. AF Realty, Bautista, MCIAA, and Alfiler are four applications of that single rule.
A general power will not do for a special act. Dominion Insurance is the paradigm: Guevarra held a broad "general agency" but paying the company's claims out of his own pocket required a special power of attorney under Art. 1878 (1). He still recovered — but under Art. 1918 in relation to Art. 1236, and only to the extent the principal actually benefited.
Read the instrument, not the label. SMC v. Trinidad and Commoner Lending both turn on the four corners of the document: how far did the SPA reach, and did the mortgage itself contain the special power to sell that Act No. 3135 requires?
Codal Provisions Engaged Across Week 2
Arts. 428 · 493 · 1159 · 1236 · 1306 · 1308 · 1317 · 1318 · 1370 · 1371 · 1374 · 1403 · 1404 · 1409 · 1410 · 1431 · 1475 · 1868 · 1869 · 1870 · 1874 · 1876 · 1877 · 1878 · 1879 · 1900 · 1902 · 1909 · 1911 · 1918 · 1919 · 1930 · 1931 · 1956 · 2085 · 2087 · 2209 · 2212 · 2229 — with Act No. 3135 (as amended by Act No. 4118), P.D. No. 1529, Rule 69, Rule 129 §4, and Secs. 22-23 / 35-36 of the Corporation Code and Revised Corporation Code.