[FORMS OF THE CONTRACT OF AGENCY]
12 GREGORIO JIMENEZ V. PEDRO RABOT, NICOLASA JIMENEZ, and her
husband EMILIO RODRIGUEZ
July 27, 1918 | Street, J. |
Facts:
● Plaintiff Gregorio instituted an action to recover from Rabot a parcel of land
situated in Alaminos, Pangasinan described as follows:
○ Approximate area of 3 hectares; bounded on the north and west
with land of Pedro Reynoso; on the south with land, of Nicolasa
Jimenez; and on the east with land of Calixta Apostol before, at
present with that of Juan Montemayor and Simon del Barrio.
● The land in question, together with two other parcels in the same locality,
originally belonged to Gregorio, having been assigned to him as one of the
heirs in the division of the estate of his father.
● While Gregorio was staying at Vigan, during 1911, his property in Alaminos
was confided by him to the care of his elder sister Nicolasa.
● He wrote his sister a letter informing her that he was pressed for money and
requested her to sell one of his parcels of land and to send him the money
so he could pay his debts.
○ The letter contained no description of the land to be sold other than
the words “one of my parcels of land.”
● Acting upon the letter, Nicolasa approached Rabot who agreed to buy the
land for P500.
○ P250 was paid at once, with the understanding that a deed of
conveyance would be executed when the balance should be paid.
○ Nicolasa received the P250 but there is no evidence that she sent it
to Gregorio.
● One year later Gregorio came down to Alaminos and demanded that his
sister should surrender this piece of land to him, it being then in her
possession.
○ She refused and as a result Gregorio, in conjunction with his
brothers and sisters, whose properties were also in the hands of
Nicolasa, instituted an action in the CFI for the recovery of their
land.
○ The action was decided in the favor of Gregorio and his siblings.
● On May 31,1912, Nicolasa executed and delivered to Rabot a deed
purporting to convey to him the parcel of land.
● Rabot went into possession, and the property was found in his hands at the
time when final judgment was entered in favor of Gregorio and his siblings in
the action above mentioned.
○ It will thus be seen that Rabot acquired possession under the deed
from Nicolasa during the pendency of the litigation in which she
was defendant; but it does not positively appear that he was at the
time cognizant of that circumstance.
Issue:
W/N the authority conferred on Nicolasa was sufficient to enable her to bind her
brother.
Held:
YES/NO. Mini explanation to ruling
● Short discussion before SC tackled the issue (putting it here just in case its
needed)
○ One or two preliminary observations may be made.
■ The first is that, as a matter of formality, a power of
attorney to convey real property ought to appear in a
public document, just as any other instrument intended to
transmit or convey an interest in such property ought to
appear in a public document. (Art. 1280).
■ But inasmuch as it is an established doctrine that a private
document is competent to create, transmit, modify, or
extinguish a right in real property, it follows that a power of
attorney to convey such property, even though in the form
of a private document, will operate with effect.
○ Supposing that the letter contained adequate authority for Nicolasa
to sell the property in question, her action in conveying the property
in her own name, without showing the capacity in which she acted,
was doubtless irregular. Nevertheless, such deed would in any
event operate to bind her brother, the plaintiff, in its character as a
contract.
○ Supposing that the authority was sufficient, he could be compelled
by a proper judicial proceeding to execute a document to carry
such contract into effect. (Art. 1279).
● The only provisions of law bearing on this point are contained in Art. 1713
and in section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
○ Art. 1713 requires that the authority to alienate land shall be
contained in an express mandate; while subsection 5 of section 335
of the Code of Civil Procedure says that the authority of the agent
must be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged.
○ The Court is of the opinion that the authority expressed in the letter
is a sufficient compliance with both requirements.
● Gregorio argues that in order for the authority to be sufficient under section
335 of the Code of Civil Procedure the authorization must contain a
particular description of the property which the agent is to be permitted to
sell.
○ There is no such requirement in subsection 5 of section 335; and
we do not believe that it would be legitimate to read such a
requirement into it.
○ The purpose in giving a power of attorney is to substitute the mind
and hand of the agent for the mind and hand of the principal; and if
the character and extent of the power is so far defined as to leave
no doubt as to the limits within which the agent is authorized to act,
and he acts within those limits, the principal cannot question the
validity of his act.
○ It is not necessary that the particular act to be accomplished should
be predestinated by the language of the power.
○ The question to be answered always, after the power has been
exercised, is rather this: Was the act which the agent
performed within the scope of his authority?
● Nicolasa was within the scope of the authority conferred upon her.
● The general rule according to jurisprudence is that the description must be
sufficiently definite to identify the land either from the recitals of the contract
or deed or from external facts referred to in the document, thereby enabling
 one to determine the identity of the land and if the description is uncertain on
its face or is shown to be applicable with equal plausibility to more than one
tract, it is insufficient.
○ This is not applicable to the present case, which relates to the
sufficiency of the authorization, not to the sufficiency of the contract
or conveyance.
○ It is unquestionable that the deed which Nicolasa executed
contains a proper description of the property which she purported to
convey.
● A person may by a general power of attorney authorize an agent to sell "all"
the land possessed by the principal, or all that he possesses in a particular
city, county, or state.
○ It is also held that where a person authorizes an agent to sell a
farm in a certain county, this is sufficient if it be shown that such
party has only one farm in that county.
● In the present case the agent was given the power to sell either of the
parcels of land belonging to the plaintiff. There is no reason why the
performance of an act within the scope of this authority should not bind the
plaintiff to the same extent as if he had given the agent authority to sell "any
or all" and she had conveyed only one'.

Dispositive
From what has been said it is evident that the lower court should have absolved the
defendant Pedro Rabot from the complaint. Judgment will accordingly be reversed,
without any express adjudication of costs of this instance.