GR L 45310; (April, 1939) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45310; April 14, 1939
Guardianship of the minors Josefina and Sofia Birondo. MARCOS J. ROTEA, petitioner-appellee, vs. FRANCISCA DELUPIO, guardian of the minors Josefina and Sofia Birondo, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Simplicio Birondo, father of the minors Josefina and Sofia Birondo, entered into an agreement with attorney Marcos J. Rotea. Rotea was to secure the annulment of a sale of a parcel of land (inherited by the minors) made by their grandmother, Francisca Delupio, and to obtain a Torrens certificate of title for the land in the minors’ names. In exchange, Simplicio promised to convey one-third of the land to Rotea. Rotea successfully performed these services. The lower court initially ordered the notation of Rotea’s right of retention over one-third of the property on the certificate of title, but later set it aside upon motion by Delupio, the court-appointed guardian of the minors, arguing Simplicio had no authority to bind the minors’ properties. The court subsequently reinstated the order for notation, prompting Delupio’s appeal.
ISSUE
Whether attorney Marcos J. Rotea is entitled to compensation (and to have his right of retention noted on the title) for legal services rendered for the benefit of the minors, based on a contract entered into with their father who was not their legal guardian.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order directing the notation of Rotea’s right of retention. While Simplicio Birondo, as mere father, had no authority to contractually bind the minors’ properties, Rotea is entitled to compensation under the principle of negotiorum gestio (management of another’s affairs without authority). By voluntarily taking steps to protect the minors’ interests, successfully annulling the fraudulent sale and securing their title, Rotea acted as a negotiorum gestor. Under Article 1893 of the Civil Code, a gestor is entitled to indemnity for necessary and useful expenses and damages incurred, even if the beneficiaries (the minors or their guardian) did not ratify the undertaking. Therefore, Rotea had a lien for his services enforceable against the property.
AI Generated by Armztrong.