You are on page 1of 1


  Aimee  Tan  
Dy  Buncio  &  Co  v  Ong  Guan  Can  (1934)    
Under  what  topic:  How  is  Agency  Extinguished  -­‐  Revocation  

Petitioner:  Dy  Buncio  and  Company  

Respondent:  Ong  Guan  Can,  Juan  Tong,  Pua  Giok  Eng  

Synopsis:  Ong  Guan  Can,  Jr.,  (Ong  Jr)  as  agent  of  Ong  Guan  Can  (Ong)  sold  a  rice-­‐mill  and  camarin  under  the  authority  of  a  
power  of  attorney  dated  May  23,  1928.  When  judgment  creditor  Buncio  and  Company  claimed  that  the  rice  mill  
and  camarin  belonged  to  debtor  Ong,  and  thus  were  subject  to  attachment  and  execution,  Juan  Tong  and  Pua  Giok  Eng  
claimed  to  be  the  owner  and  lessee  respectively,  by  virtue  of  another  deed  executed  by  Ong  Jr,  dated  July  31,  1931.  

CFI  held  that  the  July  31  deed  was  invalid.  The  SC  however,  did  not  rule  on  the  issue  of  the  validity  of  the  said  deed.  It  found  
that  the  first  power  of  attorney  was  limited  and  did  not  give  authority  to  alienate  properties.  The  second  power  of  attorney,  
meanwhile,  did  not  revoke  the  first  to  terminate  the  agency  created  in  the  first  deed.    

Doctrine:  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.    
Facts:   power  of  attorney  but  a  limited  one  and  does  not  give  the  
Ong  Guan  Can,  Jr.,  (Ong  Jr)  as  agent  of  Ong  Guan  Can  (Ong)   express  power  to  alienate  the  properties  in  question.  
who  is  the  proprietor  of  the  commercial  firm  of  Ong  Guan   (Article  1713  of  the  Civil  Code.)  
Can  &  Sons,  sold  a  rice-­‐mill  and  camarin  situated  in  Capiz    
for  P13,000,  under  the  authority  of  a  power  of  attorney   Tong  and  Pua  claim  that  this  defect  is  cured  by  a  general  
dated  May  23,  1928.  A  copy  of  this  public  instrument  was   power  of  attorney  executed  on  July  31  given  to  the  same  
attached  and  recorded  with  the  deed  in  the  office  of  the   agent.  The  Court  disagreed.  Making  and  accepting  of  a  
register  of  deeds  of  Capiz.  The  deed  was  signed  by  the  agent   new  power  of  attorney,  whether  it  enlarges  or  
in  his  own  name  and  without  any  words  indicating  that  he   decreases  the  power  of  the  agent  under  a  prior  power  
was  signing  for  the  principal.  The  receipt  of  the  money  also   of  attorney,  must  be  held  to  supplant  and  revoke  the  
acknowledged  in  the  deed  was  to  the  agent.   latter  when  the  two  are  inconsistent.  If  the  new  
  appointment  with  limited  powers  does  not  revoke  the  
While  Dy  Buncio  and  Company,  a  judgment  creditor  of  Ong,   general  power  of  attorney,  the  execution  of  the  second  
claims  that  the  rice  mill  and  camarin  belongs  to  debtor  Ong,   power  of  attorney  would  be  a  mere  futile  gesture,    
defendants  Juan  Tong  and  Pua  Giok  Eng  claim  to  be  the    
owner  and  lessee  respectively,  by  virtue  of  another  deed   The  title  of  Ong  not  having  been  divested  by  the  so-­‐called  
executed  by  Ong  Jr.  This  deed  dated  July  31,  1931.   deed  of  July  31,  1931,  his  properties  are  subject  to  
  attachment  and  execution.  
The  CFI  of  Capiz  held  that  the  July  31  deed  was  invalid.  Thus    
the  property  was  subject  to  the  execution  which  has  been   Dispositive:  
levied  on  said  properties  by  Dy  Buncio  and  Company.  Tong    
and  Pua  brought  this  appeal  before  the  SC,  insisting  that  the   The  judgment  appealed  from  is  therefore  affirmed.  Costs  
July  31  deed  by  Ong  Jr  was  valid.   against  appellants.  So  ordered.  
Issue:     Digester's  Notes:  
  The  ponencia  is  very  short,  badly  written  and  lacking  in  
WON  the  July  31  power  of  attorney  give  Ong  Jr  the  authority   facts.    It  did  not  mention  the  contents  of  both  powers  of  
to  sell  the  rice  mill  and  camarin?  NO   attorney  to  prove  absence  of  inconsistency  in  the  deeds.  
Leaving  aside  the  irregularities  of  the  deed  and  examining  
the  power  of  attorney  dated  May  23,  referred  to  in  the  deed  
and  registered  therewith,  the  Court  said  it  is  NOT  a  general