7/24/2019 BPI V. DE COSTER

1/2

BPI V. DE COSTER

G.R. No. L-23181 March 16, 1925

No!"

# $o%!r o& aor'!( )o *oa' a'+ orro% o'!( a'+ o or/a/! h! $r0'c0$a*

$ro$!r( +o! NOT carr( %0h 0 or 0$*( ha h! a/!' ha a *!/a* r0/h o a! h!

$r0'c0$a* *0a*! &or h! $!ro'a* +! o& h! a/!'.

4#CTS"

Defendant Gabriela Andrea de Coster y Roxas executed a Special Power of

Attorney in favor of her husband. Th0 ahor0( /a! 7!a' M. Po0a

a/!'ha'+: h! power to loan and borrow money in her behalf. The

aent was able to obtain a loan from !P"# secured by a chattel mortae

on the steamers of his company#Po0a V!/!a*! O0* M0** a'+ a r!a* or/a/!

o!r a $ro$!r(, %h0ch 0 a*o ;!c o a'oh!r or/a/! 0' &aor o& La Or+!' +!Do0'0co.

D!&!'+a' +!&a*!+ o' h!0r o*0/a0o' o BPI a'+ La Or+!' +! Do0'0co. Th,

oh cr!+0or $ra(!+ &or h! &orc*or! o& h! or/a/!+ $ro$!r0!.

RTC declared the defendants in default for their failure to appear and

ruled in favor of he plainti$s. D! Co!r a**!/! ha she never had any

%nowlede of the actual facts until she read about her default in the

newspapers# since she was not in the Philippines when the summons were

served& that her husband 'ed the country& that the mortaes executed

by her aent husband was without marital consent& and that he did not

have any authority to ma%e her liable as surety on the debt of a thirdperson

7/24/2019 BPI V. DE COSTER

2/2

I 0 &'+a!'a* r*! o& co'rc0o' ha %h!r! in an instrument powers and

duties are speci,ed and de,ned# that all of such powers and duties are

limited and con,ned to those which are speci,ed and de,ned# and that all

other powers and duties are excluded.

Th! &ac ha the aent*husband failed and nelected to perform his duties

and to represent the interests of his principal is ()T a bar to the principalobtainin leal relief for the nelience of her aent.

I 0 a$$ar!' &ro h! &ac! o& h! 0'r!' ha h! %ho*! $r$o! a'+ 0'!' o&

h! $o%!r o& aor'!( %a o !$o%!r a'+ ahor0! h! a/!'-ha'+ o loo%

after and protect the interests of the wife and for her and in her name to

transact any and all of her business. !ut nowhere does it provide or

authori-e him to ma%e her liable as a surety for the payment of the

preexistin debt of a third person.

Th# the aent*husband does not have the authority to sin the note and

to execute the mortae for and on behalf of the wife as her act and deed#

and that as to her the note is void for want of power of her husband toexecute it.