Uniland Resources v.

DBP
G.R. No.: 95909, August 21, 1991
Gancayco, J.:

Facts: This case pertains to the case filed by the petitioner for recovery of broker’s fee
against the respondent DBP after the successful sale of a warehouse which the latter
subjected for public auction. Prior to the sale, petitioner having known the public auction
sent letters of intent to DBP for accreditation, however the latter did not reply said
letters. Amidst the inaction, petitioner proceeded to inform Glaxo Philippines about the
auctioned properties which arouse the latter to bid. Petitioner also directly informed DBP
of Glaxo’s interest to buy the warehouse. After two public auctions, DBP sold the
warehouse to Charges Realty Corp, a company affiliated with Glaxo. However, DBP
disapproved the claim of petitioner for broker’s fee. Petitioner, filed a case for the
recovery of the broker’s fee with the trial court which the latter ordered in favor to the
petitioner. DBP appealed to the CA and the latter reversed the order of the lower court,
hence this petition for certiorari.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the letter sent by the petitioner is enough as accreditation of the
latter
2. Whether or not implied trust exist
3. Whether or not petitioner is eligible to claim the commission of 5% from the
purchase price of the warehouse
Ruling:

1. The letter sent by the petitioner is not enough as accreditation of the latter. The
Supreme Court ruled that it is only a mere indicative of the petitioner’s desire for
accreditation. To assert that it is enough to establish that petitioner is accredited, it is
self-serving. DBP should have expressly reply that it gives consent to the implied intent
of the petitioner for accreditation.

2. There is no implied trust exists. The Supreme Court said that the contention of
the petitioner that DBP should have stopped, disauthorized, or outrightly prevented the
petitioner from dealing the lot and warehouse is untenable. It is unnecessary for DBP to
do said actions. Pursuant to Art. 1869, there should be an arrangement existed. In this
case, no arrangement existed. Further the Supreme Court emphasized that in Civil Law,
it is widely accepted that “no one may contract in the name of another without being
authorized by the latter.”

3. Petitioner is not eligible to claim the commission of 5% from the purchase price of
the warehouse because there is no agency existed. However, the Supreme Court ruled
in the case of Prats v. Court of Appeals that petitioner may claim when the latter’s acts
have facilitated the sale of the auctioned property by virtue of equitable consideration. In
this case, petitioner had advised Glaxo, Philippines for the availability of the subject
property for auction which the former directly informed DBP. The Supreme court
believed that said information no doubt had a bearing on the subsequent decisions
made by respondent DBP as regards the disposition of its properties.

Teaching:
1. Persons engaged in business must appreciate formalities, such as the need for
accreditation, to prevent the same occurrence.