Title
Dy Buncio and Co., Inc. vs. Tong
Case
G.R. No. 40681
Decision Date
Oct 2, 1934
Dispute over rice-mill ownership; deed invalid due to agent's lack of authority under 1928 power of attorney, revoking prior 1920 power; property subject to execution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138386-87)

Case Background

The legal conflict arises from defendants Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng's assertion of ownership over the rice mill and camarin due to a deed dated July 31, 1931, for which Ong Guan Can, Jr. acted as an agent. The plaintiff contends that the property is owned by Ong Guan Can and is accessible for execution due to outstanding debts.

Court Findings at First Instance

The Court of First Instance of Capiz ruled that the 1931 deed was invalid, asserting that it did not transfer ownership of the property in question. The ruling stated that the execution could proceed against the properties since Ong Guan Can's ownership had not been effectively divested.

Validity of the Deed

The court noted significant issues with the deed, specifically the lack of designation indicating Ong Guan Can, Jr.'s role as an agent when signing. Although a power of attorney issued on May 23, 1928, was referenced, the court categorized it as a limited power that did not authorize the alienation of the properties. This limitation is consistent with Article 1713 of the Civil Code, which states that the power of attorney must explicitly allow the agent to alienate property for such a transfer to be valid.

Appellants' Arguments

The appellants argued that the defect in the deed was remedied by presenting a previous general power of attorney from 1920. However, the court cited Article 1732 of the Civil Code, explaining that a new limited power of attorney does not necessarily revoke a prior general power of attorney. Thus, if there is inconsistency between the powers,

...continue reading

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