GR L 13471; (January, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13471; January 12, 1920
VICENTE SY-JUCO and CIPRIANA VIARDO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SANTIAGO V. SY-JUCO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
In 1902, the defendant, Santiago V. Sy-Juco, was appointed administrator of the property of his parents, the plaintiffs Vicente Sy-Juco and Cipriana Viardo. He served in this capacity until June 30, 1916, when his authority was revoked. The plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that during his administration, the defendant acquired certain propertiesspecifically a launch named “Malabon,” a casco (barge) No. 2584, and an automobile No. 2060using the plaintiffs’ funds and for their benefit. The defendant registered these properties in his own name. The trial court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the return of the launch, casco No. 2584, and the automobile, but absolved the defendant from rendering an account of his administration and from returning other items including casco No. 2545, a typewriter, a house, and the price of a piano. Both parties appealed the decision.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the defendant acquired the launch “Malabon,” casco No. 2584, and automobile No. 2060 as an agent using the plaintiffs’ funds, thereby obliging him to return them.
2. Whether the trial court erred in absolving the defendant from rendering an account of his administration and from returning other claimed items, including casco No. 2545.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment with modification regarding casco No. 2545.
1. On the launch “Malabon,” casco No. 2584, and automobile No. 2060: The Court held that the defendant, as an agent of the plaintiffs, violated his duty by purchasing and registering the properties in his own name. The evidence showed that these items were acquired with the plaintiffs’ money. Applying Article 1717 of the Civil Code, the Court ruled that when an agent acts in his own name but uses the principal’s funds, the principal is entitled to the rights arising from the contract. Thus, the defendant was obligated to return the properties to the plaintiffs.
2. On the rendition of accounts and other items: The Court found that the defendant had regularly rendered accounts to the plaintiffs, who were satisfied with them, justifying the absolution from further accounting. Regarding casco No. 2545, the Court reversed the trial court’s refusal to rule on its ownership, declaring that it had been lawfully sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant via a public instrument, and thus the defendant was absolved from returning it. The Court also upheld the trial court’s finding that woods, windows, and doors used in the defendant’s house were given to him as his property.
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in all respects except as to casco No. 2545, declaring it sold to the defendant and absolving him therefrom. No costs were awarded.