THE SPOUSES BERNABE AFRICA and SOLEDAD C.

AFRICA, and the HEIRS OF DOMINGA ONG, petitioners-appellants,

vs.
CALTEX (PHIL.), INC., MATEO BOQUIREN and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents-appellees.
G.R. No. L-12986 March 31, 1966

FACTS:
It appears that in the afternoon of March 18, 1948 a fire broke out at the Caltex service station at the corner of Antipolo street
and Rizal Avenue, Manila. It started while gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the underground storage, right at the
opening of the receiving tank where the nozzle of the hose was inserted. The fire spread to and burned several neighboring
houses, including the personal properties and effects inside them. Their owners, among them petitioners here, sued
respondents Caltex (Phil.), Inc. and Mateo Boquiren, the first as alleged owner of the station and the second as its agent in
charge of operation. Negligence on the part of both of them was attributed as the cause of the fire.

ISSUE:
WON Caltex and Boquiren should be held liable for damages

RULING:
This issue depends on whether Boquiren was an independent contractor, as held by the Court of Appeals, or an agent
of Caltex. This question, in the light of the facts not controverted, is one of law and hence may be passed upon by this Court.
These facts are:
(1) Boquiren made an admission that he was an agent of Caltex;
(2) at the time of the fire Caltex owned the gasoline station and all the equipment therein;
(3) Caltex exercised control over Boquiren in the management of the state;
(4) the delivery truck used in delivering gasoline to the station had the name of CALTEX painted on it; and
(5) the license to store gasoline at the station was in the name of Caltex, which paid the license fees.

Caltex admits that it owned the gasoline station as well as the equipment therein, but claims that the business
conducted at the service station in question was owned and operated by Boquiren. But Caltex did not present any contract with
Boquiren that would reveal the nature of their relationship at the time of the fire. There must have been one in existence at
that time. Instead, what was presented was a license agreement manifestly tailored for purposes of this case, since it was
entered into shortly before the expiration of the one-year period it was intended to operate. This so-called license agreement.

But even if the license agreement were to govern, Boquiren can hardly be considered an independent contractor.

To determine the nature of a contract courts do not have or are not bound to rely upon the name or title given it by
the contracting parties, should thereby a controversy as to what they really had intended to enter into, but the way the
contracting parties do or perform their respective obligations stipulated or agreed upon may be shown and inquired into, and
should such performance conflict with the name or title given the contract by the parties, the former must prevail over the
latter.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed and respondents-appellees are held liable solidarily to appellants,
and ordered to pay them the aforesaid sum of P9,005.80 and P10,000.00, respectively, with interest from the filing of the
complaint, and costs.