[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
201 views1 page

De Castro V CA

1) Constante De Castro and Amor De Castro were sued by a real estate broker named Artigo to collect unpaid brokerage commission from the sale of two lots owned by the De Castros. 2) Artigo argued he was owed more commission based on the agreed upon rate of 5% of the sale price of the two lots to Times Transit Corporation. 3) The De Castros claimed the case should be dismissed for failure to implead all the co-owners of the two lots. However, the court found that impleading the co-owners was unnecessary as the case was based on a contract of agency between Artigo and Constante alone.

Uploaded by

Debroah Faith Pajarillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
201 views1 page

De Castro V CA

1) Constante De Castro and Amor De Castro were sued by a real estate broker named Artigo to collect unpaid brokerage commission from the sale of two lots owned by the De Castros. 2) Artigo argued he was owed more commission based on the agreed upon rate of 5% of the sale price of the two lots to Times Transit Corporation. 3) The De Castros claimed the case should be dismissed for failure to implead all the co-owners of the two lots. However, the court found that impleading the co-owners was unnecessary as the case was based on a contract of agency between Artigo and Constante alone.

Uploaded by

Debroah Faith Pajarillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

De Castro v. CA, G.R. No.

115838, July 18, 2002

Facts: Private respondent Artigo sued petitioners Constante and Amor De Castro to
collect the unpaid balance of his broker’s commission from the De Castors.

The appellants De Castros were co-owners of 4 lots in Cubao, Quezon City. The
appellee Artigo was authorized by appellants to act as real estate broker in the sale of
these properties for the amount of P23M, 5% of which will be given to the agent as
commission. Appellee first found the Times Transit Corporation and 2 lots were sold.
In return, he received P48,893.76 as commission.

Appellee apparently felt short changed because according to him, his total
commission should be P352,500.00 which is 5% of the agreed price of P7,050,000.00
paid by Times Transit Corporation to appellants for the 2 lots, and that it was he who
introduced the buyer to appellants and unceasingly facilitated the negotiation which
ultimately led to the consummation of the sale. Hence, he sued to collect the balance
of P303,606.24 after having received P48,893.76 in advance.

Appellants argued that appellee is selfishly asking for more than what he truly deserve
as commission to prejudice of other agents who were more instrumental to the
consummation of the sale, and that there were more or else 18 others who take active
efforts.

The De Castros argued that Artigo’s complaint should have been dismissed for failure
to implead all the co-owners of the 2 lots. The De Castros contend that failure to
implead such indispensable parties is fatal to the complaint since Artigo, as agent of
all the four co-owners, would be paid with funds co-owned by the four co-owners.

It was shown also that Constante Amor De Castro signed the authorization as owner
and representative of the co-owners.

Issue: Whether the complaint merits dismissal for failure to implead other co-owners
as indispensable parties

Held: No. The De Castros’ contentions are devoid of legal basis. The CA explained
that it is not necessary to implead the co-owners since the action is exclusively based
on a contract of agency between Artigo and Constante. The rule on mandatory joinder
of indispensable parties is not applicable to the instant case.

Constante signed the note as owner and as representative of the other co-owners. A
contract of agency was clearly constituted between Artigo and Constante. Whether
Constante appointed Artigo as agent, in Constante’s individual or representative
capacity, or both, the De Castros cannot seek the dismissal of the case for failure to
implead other co-owners as indispensable parties. The De Castros admit that the other
co-owners are solidarily liable under the contract of agency, citing Art. 1915 of the
Civil Code.

The solidary liable of the four co-owners, however, militates against the De Castros’
theory that the other co-owners should be impleaded as indispensable parties.

You might also like