Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

CALIBO VS. CA FACTS: Mike Abuella, private respondents sonleased the house of Calibo for residential purposes.P a b l o A b u e l l a l e f t t h e t r a c t o r w i t h h i s s o n f o r safekeeping.

Rent and other expenses wereinitially paid but subsequently defaulted inpayment thereof. When confronted by Calibo, Mike Abuella manifested that hell only stay in the house until end of the year 1986 and offered the tractoras security. In order for him to pay his obligations s o o n e r , h e a s k e d C a l i b o t o h e l p h i m l o o k f o r buyers. In January 1987, a new tenant occupied thehouse and Calibo moved the tractor to his fathers garage also in the same city. Even after demands, M i k e f a i l e d t o p a y h i s a r r e a r s ; h e o n l y a s s u r e d Calibo that the tractor would stand as guarantee to his payment. When Pablo Abuella tried to get the tractor from Calibo, he tried to negotiate with him a n d o f f e r e d t o w r i t e a c h e c k i n p a y m e n t o f t h e rentals and postdated checks to cover the other expenses but still had to verify with Mike. Calibo would only accept the latter if Pablo would execute a promissory note in his favor to cover the remaining expenses. The two did not agree. Pablo Abuella instituted an action for replevin, claiming o w n e r s h i p o f t h e t r a c t o r a n d s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r possession thereof from petitioner Both the trial c o u r t a n d t h e C A r u l e d i n f a v o r o f A b u e l l a . M i k e Abuella could not have validly pledged the subject t r a c t o r t o petitioner since he was not the owner thereof, nor was he authorized by its owner to pledge the tractor. ISSUE: WON there was an implied principal-agent relationship between Pablo and Mike HELD: No. Pablo Abuella categorically stated that the tractor was only left to Mike for safekeeping; not to be pledged or alienated. Mike acted without authority or consent from Pablo. Article 1869 states t h a t t h e r e w o u l d o n l y b e i m p l i e d a g e n c y i s t h e person is acting within the authority granted to him by the principal. Article 1911 mandates that the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers. Again, in view of Pablos lack of knowledge of Mikes pledging the tractor without any authority from him, it shows that Pablo could not have allowed the Mike to pledge the tractor as if he had full powers to do so. Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.