Ching v. Bantolo

Summary

This case involves a dispute over a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by property owners in favor of agents to secure a loan using their properties as collateral. The Supreme Court ruled that the SPA was a contract of agency coupled with interest, making its revocation improper. However, the Court affirmed that the agents were not entitled to claim ownership of half the properties, as this would be contrary to human experience given the parties barely knew each other. The Court also upheld that agents should bear their own expenses in processing the loan, as one agent had testified he agreed to shoulder all costs. The decision demonstrates the importance of clear contractual terms and the courts' reluctance to award property rights based solely on self-serving testimony. The case establishes that while agency contracts coupled with interest cannot be unilaterally revoked, this does not automatically entitle agents to property ownership or expense reimbursement without clear evidence of such agreements.