Title
Yasuma vs. Heirs of De Villa
Case
G.R. No. 150350
Decision Date
Aug 22, 2006
Cecilio de Villa obtained personal loans, secured by unauthorized corporate mortgages. SC ruled loans personal, mortgage void; corporation not liable.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150350)

Applicable Law

This case is governed by the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Corporation Code of the Philippines. The core issues revolve around agency law, particularly the authority of corporate officers, and the principles of ratification in the context of corporate obligations.

Antecedent Facts

Cecilio S. de Villa borrowed P1.3 million from Yasuma, evidenced by three promissory notes, secured by real estate mortgages on property owned by East Cordillera Mining Corporation. After de Villa defaulted on payments, Yasuma initiated a collection action against both de Villa and the corporation. Following de Villa's death, Yasuma amended his complaint to include de Villa's heirs as defendants.

Initial Ruling and Appeal

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in Yasuma’s favor, finding the corporation liable. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) later reversed this decision, determining that the loan was a personal obligation of de Villa, not a corporate debt, thereby nullifying the mortgage secured by the corporation's property for lack of authority.

Issues for Resolution

The Supreme Court identified two principal issues:

  1. Whether the loans were personal debts of de Villa or corporate obligations of East Cordillera Mining Corporation.
  2. Whether the mortgage executed on corporate property was valid despite the absence of formal authorization from the corporation.

Personal vs. Corporate Liability

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a corporation is a distinct legal entity, acting through a board of directors and corporate officers with necessary authority. De Villa's signing of the promissory notes did not explicitly indicate he acted on behalf of the corporation; thus, the loans were primarily deemed personal liabilities. The corporation's admission to receiving the funds did not constitute ratification of the loans, as the context of the transactions suggested that the corporation believed the funds were investment-related, not borrowed.

Ratification and Authority

Ratification requires the principal’s knowledge and voluntary acknowledgment of the unauthorized acts of an agent. The court found that De Villa’s actions in securing the loans did not adhere to any established protocols for borrowing to bind the corporation. Since no special power of attorney was presented, the mortgage agreements were ultimately considered void.

Mortgage Validity

Owing to the lack of appropriate corporate authorization, the Supreme Court concluded that the mortgage executed by De Villa was null and void. The absence of a special power of attorne

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.