FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed by Leticia Vasquez-Menancio against Caridad S. Sazon in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ligao City, Albay. Respondent entrusted the management of her properties to petitioner in 1979. The properties consist of several residential lots, irrigated ricelands, and coconut lands located in various areas in Albay. Respondent alleges that petitioner, as the administrator, collected all the fruits and income derived from the properties but failed to render a full accounting and to remit the owner's share. Petitioner claims that some of the properties do not generate any income and any income derived from them is not sufficient to cover the expenses incurred. Respondent revoked petitioner's authority effective March 1997 and demanded the return and administration of the properties. Petitioner refused to comply with the demands and continued to hold on to the properties and the income generated. As a result, respondent filed a complaint praying for an accounting and the remittance of the fruits and income.

The plaintiff, Leticia Vasquez-Menancio, filed a complaint against the defendant, Caridad S. Sazon, seeking the return of certain properties and the payment of unremitted fruits and income from the said properties. The defendant argued that she cannot return some of the properties because they are under valid lease agreements or have been transferred to a third party. During the pretrial conference, the parties agreed that the plaintiff already had possession over certain properties and that all the income derived from the properties were received by the defendant. The RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to turn over the possession of the properties, remit the unremitted fruits and income, and pay damages and attorney's fees. The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was partly granted by the RTC. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision with certain modifications. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The petitioner argues that the appellate court should not have affirmed the RTC decision because the latter already admitted that it had committed erroneous computations.

The petitioner appeals to the Court of Appeals (CA) to review the case. Respondent argues that the CA has the power to affirm the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) second decision and resolution on the motion for reconsideration because the entire case was opened for review upon appeal. The CA has the authority to affirm, reverse, or modify the decision or order of the RTC. The lease agreements covering Lots I-III should be respected, but petitioner must turn over the administration of the leases to respondent's attorney-in-fact since the authority of petitioner as administrator has been revoked. The sale of one-third of Lot IV to petitioner's mother should be respected, and respondent should turn over possession of the corresponding one-third portion and remit all fruits collected since 1997. Petitioner questions the factual findings of the CA, arguing that she never claimed that the reason for not rendering an accounting of income was because respondent never demanded it. She insists that she actually sent letters of accounting to respondent.

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioner, as respondent's agent, should turn over the administration of the leases of the properties to respondent's attorney-in-fact.

2. Whether respondent should turn over possession of one-third portion of Lot IV to petitioner's mother.

3. Whether petitioner fulfilled her duty to render an accounting of her transactions as respondent's agent.

4. Whether ownership of Lots V and VI was transferred to petitioner's mother through a Deed of Redemption.

5. Whether respondent promised to give petitioner a 20% commission for the sale of certain properties.

6. Whether an agreement between the parties for petitioner to administer respondent's properties existed.

7. Whether petitioner is liable to remit the fruits and proceeds collected from respondent's properties.

8. Whether the trial court's computation of the value of the fruits and rents earned by the properties is correct.

9. Whether the computation of unremitted fruits and rents solely based on the evidence submitted by respondent's attorney-in-fact was correct.

10. Whether the Certifications issued by the NFA and PCA should be given weight as evidence.

11. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the quantity and quality of harvests for the relevant period.

12. Whether the trial court correctly ordered the petitioner to present evidence regarding expenses and deductions.

13. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for her services.

14. Whether the doctrine of quantum meruit should be applied in determining the petitioner's compensation.

15. Whether or not petitioner is ordered to turn over the possession, management, and administration of certain lots to respondent.

16. Whether or not respondent is ordered to turn over the possession, management, and administration of a portion of lot IV to petitioner.

17. Whether or not the case should be remanded to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings.

18. Whether or not the award of moral damages and attorney's fees should be upheld.

RULING:

1. Yes. Petitioner, as respondent's agent, must turn over the administration of the leases to respondent's attorney-in-fact since respondent has already revoked petitioner's authority as administrator.

2. Yes. Respondent should turn over possession of one-third portion of Lot IV to petitioner's mother since it is now owned by her.

3. No. Petitioner failed to fulfill her duty to render an accounting of her transactions as respondent's agent.

4. No. Ownership of Lots V and VI was not transferred to petitioner's mother through a Deed of Redemption.

5. Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that respondent promised to give her a 20% commission for the sale of certain properties.

6. The Supreme Court did not explicitly state its ruling on the existence of an agreement between the parties for petitioner to administer respondent's properties. However, it was mentioned that no evidence, other than petitioner's testimony, was presented to prove the existence of such an agreement.

7. Every agent is bound to deliver to the principal whatever the former may have received by virtue of the agency, even if that amount is not owed to the principal. Therefore, petitioner is liable to remit the fruits and proceeds collected from respondent's properties.

8. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court's computation of the value of the fruits and rents earned by the properties from 1979 to 1997. No specific ruling regarding the correct computation was provided.

9. The computation of unremitted fruits and rents solely based on the evidence submitted by respondent's attorney-in-fact was incorrect.

10. The Certifications issued by the NFA and PCA should be given weight as evidence.

11. There was no sufficient evidence to prove the quantity and quality of harvests for the relevant period.

12. The trial court correctly ordered the petitioner to present evidence regarding expenses and deductions.

13. The petitioner is entitled to compensation for her services.

14. The doctrine of quantum meruit should be applied in determining the petitioner's compensation.

15. Petitioner is ordered to turn over the possession, management, and administration of Lots I, II, III, V, and VI to respondent.

16. Respondent is ordered to turn over the possession, management, and administration of one-third of Lot IV to petitioner.

17. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court for the following purposes:

18. a. Order petitioner to render a full accounting of all the fruits and proceeds earned by respondent's properties during petitioner's administration.

19. b. Order petitioner to submit a detailed list with a breakdown of all claimed expenses.

20. c. Determine the exact quantity and quality of the harvests or fruits produced by the properties and the expenses incurred in maintaining them.

21. d. Determine the total amount earned by the properties using the prevailing prices of palay, corn, and copra.

22. e. Subtract the proven expenses by petitioner and her compensation from the determined total amount.

23. The award of moral damages and attorney's fees is deleted in the absence of proof of bad faith and malice on the part of petitioner.

PRINCIPLES:

• Every agent is bound to render an account of his transactions and deliver to the principal whatever he may have received by virtue of the agency.

• Stipulations exempting the agent from the obligation to render an account are void.

• Factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded high respect and are not disturbed by appellate courts, unless found to be clearly arbitrary or baseless.

• Every agent is obligated to deliver to the principal whatever the agent may have received by virtue of the agency, even if that amount is not owed to the principal.

• The value of the fruits and proceeds collected by an agent from the principal's properties must be accurately determined through proper evidence and computation.

• Certifications issued by government offices are considered genuine, authentic, valid, and issued in the proper exercise and regular performance of official duties.

• The trial court has the authority to order a full, accurate, and complete accounting of all fruits and proceeds derived from administered properties.

• The doctrine of quantum meruit allows for the recovery of the reasonable value of services rendered in the absence of an exact amount agreed upon.

• In cases where a person claims to be entitled to the possession or administration of certain properties, the court may order the turnover of said properties to the rightful owner or administrator.

• The court may order the submission of a full, accurate, and complete accounting of the fruits and proceeds earned by the properties in question.

• The court may require the submission of a detailed breakdown of claimed expenses to determine their legitimacy.

• In determining the total amount earned by the properties, the court may use official declarations of prevailing prices.

• In the absence of proof of bad faith and malice, the award of moral damages and attorney's fees may be deleted.