G.R. No. L-7045 - Gutierrez vs. Ruiz

Simplicio Birondo, father of the minor girls Josefina and Sofia Birondo, is the principal in this case.
Marcos J. Rotea, an attorney, was engaged by Simplicio Birondo to secure the annulment of an earlier sale and to facilitate the issuance of a Torrens certificate of title in favor of the minors.
Francisca Delupio, acting as the administrator/guardian of the minors’ persons and properties, is the opposing party in the appeal.
A third party, Fabian Franco, is connected with the original sale executed on June 6, 1931, which is the subject of annulment proceedings.

Simplicio Birondo bound himself by contract to convey one-third of a parcel of land—specifically, the uncultivated portion near the Novaliches-Manila provincial road—to attorney Rotea as full compensation for his professional services.
The subject property, known as Lot No. 1023 of the Hacienda Piedad in Baesa, Caloocan, Rizal, was originally involved in a sale by Francisca Delupio in favor of Fabian Franco.
The minors had inherited the right to buy the property from their deceased mother, Beatriz Bartolome, and later acquired it from the Government by purchase.

Marcos J. Rotea took the following steps on behalf of Simplicio Birondo and the minors:

Initiated actions to have the Bureau of Lands disapprove the sale executed by Francisca Delupio.
Successfully obtained Certificate of Title No. 27823 in the names of the minors, Josefina and Sofia.

Civil Case No. 6177 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, on behalf of Simplicio Birondo and the minors.
Civil Case No. 6191, where he appeared solely representing Simplicio Birondo.

On April 25, 1936, the Court of First Instance of Rizal issued an order directing that the register of deeds note Marcos J. Rotea’s right of retention over one-third of the land, as agreed upon by Simplicio Birondo.
Francisca Delupio, contesting the father’s authority to contract on behalf of the minors, filed a motion on May 9, 1936, seeking reconsideration of the order.
The Court set aside the initial order for notation by granting the motion on May 29, 1936.
Subsequently, on July 7, 1936, the court reissued an order again directing the notation of the right of retention, albeit without specifying its exact value, which led to the present appeal.

Whether Simplicio Birondo was authorized to enter into a contract with attorney Marcos J. Rotea binding the properties of his minor daughters.
Whether the lack of such authority affects the attorney’s entitlement to compensation.

Whether, in the absence of proper authority or ratification by the guardian of the minors, attorney Rotea’s actions qualify as negotiorum gestio.
Whether his effective performance in annulment proceedings and the acquisition of the certificate of title entitles him to be indemnified for necessary and useful expenses and damages incurred.