59. de Buncio & Co. vs Ong Guan Gan
2
/---!e-library! 6.0 Philippines Copyright © 2000 by Sony Valdez---\ [ "#V 6$% &' ()*C+, C, P *' +*C. plainti1 and appellee s. ,*3 3) * C * $4 5. de endants. 7) * 4,*3 and P) 3+,8 $*3 appellants. "# ,9t 2$n (an93.:. *o. #06;& $ C + S + , * <)55 7= 4his is a s>it o er a ri9e-?ill and 9a?arin sit>ated at &ao Pro in9e o Capiz. Pl 9lai?s that the property belongs to its @>dg?ent debtor ,ng 3>an Can Ahile de endants 7>an 4ong and P>a 3ioB $ng 9lai? as oAner and lessee o the oAner by irt>e o a deed dated 7>ly " " by ,ng 3>an Can 7r. ter trial the Co>rt o irst +nstan9e o Capiz held that the deed Aas in alid and the property Aas s>b@e9t to the eDe9>tion Ahi9h had been le ied on said properties by the @>dg?ent 9reditor o the oAner. &e endants 7>an 4ong and P>a 3ioB $ng bring this appeal and insist that the deed o the "st o 7>ly " is alid. 4he irst re9ital o the deed is that ,ng 3>an Can @r. as agent o ,ng 3>an Can the proprietor o the 9o??er9ial Er? o ,ng 3>an Can Sons sells the ri9e-?ill and 9a?arin or P" 000 and gi es as his a>thority the poAer o attorney dated the 2"d o ay 2; a 9opy o this p>bli9 instr>?ent being atta9hed to the deed and re9orded Aith the deed in the oF9e o the register o deeds o Capiz. 4he re9eipt o the ?oney a9BnoAledged in the deed Aas to the agent and the deed Aas signed by the agent in his oAn na?e and Aitho>t any Aords indi9ating that he Aas signing it or the prin9ipal. 5ea ing aside the irreg>larities o the deed and 9o?ing to the poAer o attorney re erred to in the deed and registered thereAith it is at on9e seen that it is not general poAer o attorney b>t a li?ited one and does not gi e the eDpress poAer to alienate the properties in G>estion. H rti9le I" o the Ci il Code.J ppellants 9lai? that this de e9t is 9>red by $Dhibit Ahi9h p>rports to be a general poAer o attorney gi en to the sa?e agent in 20. rti9le I"2 o the Ci il Code is silent o er the partial ter?ination o an agen9y. 4he ?aBing and a99epting o a neA poAer o attorney Ahether it enlarges or de9reases the poAer o the agent >nder a prior poAer o attorney ?>st be held to s>pplant and re oBe the latter Ahen the tAo are in9onsistent. + the neA appoint?ent Aith li?ited poAers does not re oBe the general poAer o attorney the eDe9>tion o the se9ond poAer o attorney Ao>ld be a ?ere >tile gest>re. 4he title o ,ng 3>an Can not ha ing been di ested by the so- 9alled deed on 7>ly " " his properties are s>b@e9t to atta9h?ent and eDe9>tion. 4he @>dg?ent appealed ro? is there ore aFr?ed. Costs against appellants. So ordered. an9eKa C.7. bad Santos Vi9Bers and &iaz 77. 9on9>r.
description
Partnership & Agency
Transcript of 59. de Buncio & Co. vs Ong Guan Gan
/---!e-library! 6.0 Philippines Copyright 2000 by Sony Valdez---\
[1934V196E] DY BUNCIO & COMPANY, INC., plaintiff and appellee, vs. ONG GUAN CAN, ET AL., defendants. JUAN TONG and PUA GIOK ENG, appellants.1934 Oct 2En BancG.R. No. 40681D E C I S I O N
HULL, J:
This is a suit over a rice-mill and camarin situated at Dao, Province of Capiz. Plaintiff claims that the property belongs to its judgment debtor, Ong Guan Can, while defendants Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng claim as owner and lessee of the owner by virtue of a deed dated July 31, 1931, by Ong Guan Can, Jr.
After trial the Court of First Instance of Capiz held that the deed was invalid and that the property was subject to the execution which had been levied on said properties by the judgment creditor of the owner. Defendants Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng bring this appeal and insist that the deed of the 31st of July, 1931, is valid.
The First recital of the deed is that Ong Guan Can, jr., as agent of Ong Guan Can, the proprietor of the commercial firm of Ong Guan Can & Sons, sells the rice-mill and camarin for P13,000 and gives as his authority the power of attorney dated the 23d of May, 1928, a copy of this public instrument being attached to the deed and recorded with the deed in the office of the register of deeds of Capiz. The receipt of the money acknowledged in the deed was to the agent, and the deed was signed by the agent in his own name and without any words indicating that he was signing it for the principal.
Leaving aside the irregularities of the deed and coming to the power of attorney referred to in the deed and registered therewith, it is at once seen that it is not a general power of attorney but a limited one and does not give the express power to alienate the properties in question. (Article 1713 of the Civil Code.)
Appellants claim that this defect is cured by Exhibit 1, which purports to be a general power of attorney given to the same agent in 1920. Article 1732 of the Civil Code is silent over the partial termination of an agency. The making and accepting of a new power of attorney, whether it enlarges or decreases the power of the agent under a prior power of attorney, must be held to supplant and revoke the latter when the two are inconsistent. If the new appointment with limited powers does not revoke the general power of attorney, the execution of the second power of attorney would be a mere futile gesture.
The title of Ong Guan Can not having been divested by the so- called deed on July 31, 1931, his properties are subject to attachment and execution.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. Costs against appellants. So ordered.
Avancea, C.J., Abad Santos, Vickers and Diaz, JJ., concur.
\---!e-library! 6.0 Philippines Copyright 2000 by Sony Valdez---/
([1934V196E] DY BUNCIO & COMPANY, INC., plaintiff and appellee, vs. ONG GUAN CAN, ET AL., defendants. JUAN TONG and PUA GIOK ENG, appellants., G.R. No. 40681, 1934 Oct 2, En Banc)
