Title
Jimenez vs. Rabot
Case
G.R. No. 12579
Decision Date
Jul 27, 1918
Gregorio Jimenez authorized his sister Nicolasa to sell land; she sold it to Pedro Rabot. Court ruled the sale valid, reversing lower court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 12579)

Factual Background

Gregorio Jimenez originally inherited a parcel of land in Alaminos, along with two other parcels, as part of his father’s estate. During his absence in Vigan in 1911, he entrusted Nicolasa, his elder sister, with the care of his property. Gregorio, facing financial difficulties, wrote to Nicolasa requesting her to sell one of the parcels to assist him with his debts.

Transaction with Pedro Rabot

Responding to Gregorio's letter, Nicolasa approached Pedro Rabot, who agreed to purchase the specific parcel for P500. Nicolasa received an initial payment of P250, yet there was no evidence that she transmitted any part of this payment to Gregorio. When Gregorio later returned and demanded the land back, Nicolasa refused. Consequently, Gregorio, along with other siblings, initiated legal action in the Court of First Instance to recover their properties from Nicolasa, which resulted in a favorable judgment for them in 1913.

Conveyance of Land to Rabot

Despite the ongoing litigation, Nicolasa executed a deed on May 31, 1912, transferring the disputed land to Pedro Rabot in exchange for the previously agreed purchase price of P500. Rabot took possession of the parcel, which remained in his custody until the final judgment was made in favor of Gregorio and his siblings.

Legal Issues and Court Findings

The case revolves around whether Nicolasa had the authority, as appointed by Gregorio’s letter, to sell the property to Rabot. The court acknowledged that while formal power of attorney documents are typically required to convey real property, a private document can still constitute a valid transfer of property rights as long as it adheres to the necessary legal requirements.

Authority to Convey

In assessing Nicolasa's authority, the court examined the sufficiency of the authorization granted in Gregorio's letter. Article 1713 of the Civil Code stipulates that an express mandate is required for the sale of land, while the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that any such authority must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The court found that the letter from Gregorio provided sufficient compliance with these legal requirements, notwithstanding that it lacked a specific description of the land.

Scope of the Power of Attorney

The court addressed whether Nicolasa’s actions fell within the scope of the authority endowed to her by Gregorio. It concluded that the lack of a detailed description did not invalidate the authority, emphasizing that the fundamental requi

...continue reading

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