Rocha v. Prats

[65] ROCHA v.
PRATS  The following day, Rocha endeavored to close the transaction with Madrigal who
G.R. No. 16716; May 31, 1922; Ostrand, J. offered to secure the deferred payment on the purchase price with a mortgage on the
property.
TOPIC: Obligations of the Principal to the Agent o But Brimo then insisting on a credito bancario as security and Madrigal
declining to agree to this, the sale failed.
SUMMARY: Brimo, the manager of the defendant company, verbally authorized Mencarini to o A few days later Brimo, through another agent, sold the property to
negotiate the sale of a real property, and provided for his compensation which the excess of the Concepcion Leyba for P175,000.
purchase price. Subsequently, Rocha agreed to help Mencarini in finding a purchaser. He  Mencarini first claimed compensation for his services in connection with the
[Rocha] received a similar authorization to that of Mencarini from the company manager. Finally,
negotiations for the sale to Madrigal, but now appears to have relinquished his claim in
Rocha obtained an offer from a certain Madrigal to buy the property. Before closing the sale,
Brimo gave Rocha a written authorization of the sale of the real estates. Rocha, however, favor of Rocha.
protested against a certain clause therein, but Brimo allegedly told him that he could have this
stricken out at the consummation of the sale. The sale failed because Brimo and Madrigal had a ISSUE(S)/HELD
disagreement as to the security on the property. TC rendered judgment in favor of the defendant WON plaintiff Rocha may recover the sum of P15,000 as broker's commission. – NO.
company absolving it from the complaint. SC upheld the TC decision.  SC upheld the TC decision.
 The decision of the case hinges on questions of fact upon which the SC does not feel
DOCTRINE justified in disturbing the findings of the trial court.
The duty assumed by the broker is to bring the minds of the buyer and seller to an agreement for o There is no doubt that if the above-quoted authorization correctly states the
a sale, and the price and terms on which it is to be made, and until that is done his right to terms of the proposed sale, the plaintiff cannot recover.
commission does not accrue. o He never quite succeeded in bringing the minds of the buyer and seller to
an agreement.
RELEVANT PROVISION(S)  Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co.: The duty assumed by the broker is to bring the
minds of the buyer and seller to an agreement for a sale, and the price and
FACTS terms on which it is to be made, and until that is done his right to commission
 An action was brought to recover the sum of P15,000 as broker's commission on the does not accrue.
sale of a building and lot situated on Calle David, Manila. o If it were clearly established that the defendant waived the condition that the
 TC rendered judgment in favor of the defendant company absolving it from the deferred payments of the purchase price were to be secured by bank
complaint. credits, the plaintiff would be entitled to a recovery.
o From this judgment the plaintiff appealed.  However, the Court does not think the oral evidence presented by
 Antonio A. Brimo, the manager of the defendant company, verbally authorized Joaquin the plaintiff is sufficient to vary the terms of the written instrument
Mencarini to negotiate the sale of the property above-mentioned, Mencarini to receive Exhibit B.
as his compensation the excess of the purchase price over and above P150,000.  SC agrees with the trial court that had there been a clear understanding as to the
o Subsequently, plaintiff Rocha agreed to help Mencarini in finding a waiver, ordinary prudence should have led the plaintiff to have that understanding
purchaser and received from Brimo an authorization similar to that of appear in writing.
Mencarini.
o Both Mencarini and Rocha, from time to time, submitted propositions from RULING
various prospective purchaser.
 However, none of which were acceptable to the defendant. DISPOSITIVE: The judgment appealed from is therefore AFFIRMED, without costs. SO
 Finally, Rocha obtained an offer from Vicente Madrigal to buy the property for ORDERED.
P165,000 of which the sum of P65,000 was to be paid in cash and the balance within
a year from the date of the sale.
o Before closing the sale, Brimo, at Rocha's request, gave the latter the power
in writing, with the authorization of the sale of real estates containing a total
area of 1,529 square meters, for the price of one P165,000.
 The condition: P65,000 should be paid at the time of the deed
signing.
 Rocha testifies that when the document was handed to him, he protested against the
clause “Provided that the purchaser shall give banking security for the payment of
these one hundred thousand pesos."
o Brimo then allegedly told him that if the sale was made to Madrigal, he could
strike out this clause.
o Brimo denies that he authorized Rocha to waive this condition.

Rocha v. Prats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rocha v. Prats

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rocha v. Prats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[65] ROCHA v.

You might also like