8/11/2019 Buncio and Co v Ong Guan

1/1

G.R. No. L-40681 October 2, 1934

DY BUNCIO & COMPANY, INC.,plaintiff-appelle,

vs.

ONG GUAN CAN, ET AL.,defendants.

JUAN TONG and PUA GIOK ENG,appellants.

NOTE: THIS CASE WAS PROMULGATED IN 1934, SO THE APPLICABLE CIVIL CODE IS NOT THE PRESENT ONE

OF 1950, AND THE ARTICLES BELOW DONT REFER TO THE NCC. BUT ITS THE DOCTRINE THAT MATTERS

Facts:

This suit involves ownership over two particular pieces of property in Dao, Province of Capiz. The properties

in question are a rice mill and a camarin (a type of chapel). The contention is 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 CFI of Capiz held that the deed was invalid and that the property was subject to the

execution which has been levied on said properties by the judgment creditor of the owner. Defendants Juan

Tong and Pua Giok 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 a particular power of attorney. However, he (Jr.) signed it in his name without any mention of the

principal. The receipt of money was also addressed to him.

Aside from this irregularity, the Supreme Court ruled that it was immediately apparent that the power of

attorney was a limited one, and not a specific one which would include the power to alienate.

Appellants claim that this defect is cured by what is supposedly a general power of attorney given to thesame 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.

ISSUE: WAS THE SALE VALID?

HELD: No, there was no appropriate power of attorney. Hence it may be the subject of execution.

What to take away from this case: When a new power of attorney is accepted, and it is inconsistent with an

earlier one, it revokes the earlier one.