Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Case Num: 340. Yoshizaki v.

Joey Training Center, 702 SCRA 631 [2013]


Respondent. [G.R. No. 174978]


Petition for review on certiorari 1 filed by petitioner Sally Yoshizaki to challenge the February
14, 2006 Decision2 and the October 3, 2006 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CV No. 83773.


Spouses Richard and Linda Johnson were members in the Joy Trainings Board of trustees who
sold the real properties, a Wrangler Jeep, and other personal properties to spouses Yoshio and
Sally Yoshizaki. The respondent Joy Training Center of Aurora Inc. Represented by its acting
Chairperson, Reuben Rubio, instituted an action for the cancellation of sales and damages,
averring that the Johnsons was without the requisite authority from Joy Trainings Board of
Directors. The Regional Trial Court of Aurora ruled in favour of the spouses Yoshizaki. Where
the RTC ruled its decision based on the fact that Joy Training Center Inc. owned the real
properties and its board of directors authorized the Johnsons to dispose/sell those properties. The
RTC recognized that there were only five (5) actual members of the board of trustees, a majority
of the board which validly authorized the said sale. The RTC also rules that the sale of the
personal properties in question was valid due to the fact that those properties are registered under
the Johnsons name. The Court of Appeals reversed its ruling with respect to the sale of real
properties, ruling that the resolution is void because it was not appropriated by a majority of the
board of trustees.


Whether or not there was a contract of agency to sell the real properties between Joy Training
and the spouses Johnson.


WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated February 14, 2006 and
Resolution dated October 3, 2006 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED and the
petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.


The Supreme Court ruled that there was no contract of agency between Joy Training and the
spouses Richard and Linda Johnson to sell the land with its improvements. Article 1868 of the
New Civil Code defines a contract of agency as a contract whereby a person binds himself to
render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the
consent or authority of the latter. It may be express, or implied from the acts of the principal,
from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that another
person is acting on his behalf without authority. The evidence that was presented in this case was
not substantial enough to convince the Supreme Court of the existence of the contract of agency
to sell the real properties.