Case Summary (G.R. No. 40681)
Appellants’ Claim on Appeal
Appellants Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng appealed, insisting that the July 31, 1931 deed was valid and passed title to them (or their lessor). They relied on Exhibit 1, a purported general power of attorney executed in 1920 in favor of the same agent, contending that any limitation in the 1928 instrument was therefore cured by the earlier general authority.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether the deed of July 31, 1931, validly divested title of the owner given the agency instruments on record—specifically whether the limited power of attorney of May 23, 1928, authorized the agent to alienate the owner’s property, or whether an earlier 1920 general power of attorney remained effective and validated the sale.
Court’s Analysis Regarding Agency Instruments
The court observed two dispositive formal and substantive defects: procedurally, the deed was signed by the agent in his own name and the receipt of money was to the agent, without language showing he acted for the principal; substantively, the power of attorney actually attached and recorded with the deed (May 23, 1928) was a limited power that did not expressly grant authority to alienate the properties in question (invoking Article 1713 of the Civil Code). The appellants’ reliance on the 1920 general power of attorney (Exhibit 1) was addressed under Article 1732 and the court’s interpretation of agency law: while Article 1732 is silent on partial termination of an agency, where a new power of attorney is made and accepted that is inconsistent with a prior instrument, the newer appointment must be held to supplant and revoke the earlier one. The court reasoned that if a later, more limited appointment did not revoke an earlier general authority, the later instrument would be a futile gesture. Applying that principle, the May 23, 1928 limited power, being inconsistent with a prior
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 40681)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 60 Phil. 696, G.R. No. 40681, decided October 02, 1934.
- Decision authored by Justice Hull.
- Appeal from the Court of First Instance of Capiz following a trial on title and the validity of a deed; appellants seek reversal of the trial court's determination that the deed was invalid and that the property was subject to execution by a judgment creditor of the owner.
- Judgment of the trial court affirmed; costs assessed against appellants.
Parties
- Plaintiff and appellee: Dy Buncio & Company, Inc.
- Defendants (originally): Ong Guan Can et al.
- Appellants on appeal: Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng.
- Judgment debtor and named proprietor in the disputed instruments: Ong Guan Can (and reference to Ong Guan Can, jr., acting as agent).
Subject Matter and Property in Dispute
- The suit concerns ownership and title to a rice-mill and camarin located in Dao, Province of Capiz.
- The central question is whether the rice-mill and camarin were validly conveyed by a deed dated July 31, 1931, such that the properties were no longer subject to levy and execution by the judgment creditor of the purported owner.
Basic Factual Background (as stated)
- A deed dated July 31, 1931, purports to sell the rice-mill and camarin for P13,000.
- The deed's first recital states that Ong Guan Can, jr., acted as agent of Ong Guan Can, proprietor of the commercial firm Ong Guan Can & Sons, and that the agent sold the properties for P13,000.
- A copy of a power of attorney dated May 23, 1928, is attached to and recorded with the deed in the office of the register of deeds of Capiz.
- The receipt of the purchase money acknowledged in the deed was made to the agent (Ong Guan Can, jr.).
- The deed was signed by the agent in his own name and without words indicating that he was signing on behalf of the principal.
Trial Court Findings
- The Court of First Instance of Capiz held that the deed dated July 31, 1931, was invalid.
- The trial court further held that the property remained the title of the owner (Ong Guan Can) and thus was subject to execution levied on the properties by the owner’s judgment creditor.
- Defendants Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng appealed from this judgment, contending the deed was valid.
Instruments and Their Characteristics
- Deed (July 31, 1931):
- Recital describes agent selling as agent for proprietor.
- Contains an attached copy of a power of attorney dated May 23, 1928, recorded with the deed.
- Receipt for purchase money acknowledged to the agent.
- Signed by the agent in his own name, lacking explicit language that the signature was made on behalf of the principal.
- Power of Attorney (May 23, 1928):
- Described in the decision as not a general power of att