Jimenez v Rabot | GR No. L-12579 | July 27, 1918 | Ponente: Street, J.

Sumary: Gregorio’s elder sister, Nicolasa Jimenez, was the agent of the former.
Previously, Gregorio wrote his sister that he was pressed for money and requested her to
sell one of his parcels of land and send him the money so he could pay his debts. Acting
upon this letter, Nicolasa approached Pedro Rabot and offered the parcel in question for
PHP 500. Pedro paid PHP 250 and agreed that the deed of conveyance will be paid when
the balance is settled. Nicolasa admits this, but there is no proof that she actually sent the
money to Gregorio. One year later,Gregorio came to Alaminos and demanded that his
sister surrender the said piece of land to him. Gregorio Jimenez instituted an action to
recover from Pedro Rabot a parcel of land situated in the municipality of Alaminos. The
lower court rendered a judgment in favor of Pedro, thus Gregorio appealed to the
Supreme Court. It was posited by the plaintiffs that a power of attorney (making Nicolasa
the agent should be in a public document and the power of attorney in question is merely
in the form of a private document. The Court however, ruled otherwise and stated that the
authority was sufficient thus the sale to Pedro Rabot was proper and Gregorio cannot
recover.

FACTS:
 Gregorio Jimenez filed this action to recover from Rabot, a parcel of land situated
in Alaminos, Pangasinan
o The property in question, together with two other parcels in the same
locality originally belonged to Jimenez, having been assigned to him as
one of the heirs in the division of the estate of his father
 It further appears that while Gregorio Jimenez was staying at Vigan, Ilocos Sur,
his property in Alaminos was confided by him to the care of his elder sister
Nicolasa Jimenez.
 He wrote his sister a letter from Vigan in which he informed her that he was
pressed for money and requested her to sell one of his parcels of land and send
him the money in order that he might pay his debts. The letter contains no
description of the land to be sold other than is indicated in the words “one of my
parcels of land”.
 Acting upon this letter, Nicolasa approached Rabot and the latter agreed to buy
the property for the sum of P500. P250 was paid at once, with the understanding
that a deed of conveyance would be executed when the balance should be paid.
 Nicolasa admits having received this payment but there is no evidence that she
sent it to her brother
 After one year, Gregorio Jimenez went back to Alaminos and demanded that his
sister surrender the piece of land to him, it being then in her possession.
 She refused upon some pretext or other to do so and as a result, plaintiff instituted
an action to recover the land from her control
 Meanwhile, Nicolasa executed and delivered to Rabot a deed purporting to
convey to him the parcel of land

ISSUES:
1. WON the authority conferred on Nicolasa by the letter was sufficient to enable
her to bind her brother of the sale made in favor of Rabot?

HELD:
YES.
 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. 1713 of the Civil Code requires that the authority to alienate land shall be
contained in an express mandate
 Subsection 5 of section 335 of Code of Civil Procedure say that the authority of the
agent must be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged
 SC: the authority expressed in the letter is a sufficient compliance tih both
requirements
 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 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
 The general rule here applicable 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.

2. Whether a power of attorney to convey real property ought to appear in a public

document?

HELD:
NO.
 It is established doctrine that a private document is competent to create, transmit,
modify
 Thus it follows that a power of attorney to convey such property, even though in the
form of a private document, will operate with effect.
 Assuming that the letter Gregorio sent contained adequate authority for Nicolasa to
sell the property, her action in conveying the said property in her own name without
her telling Pedro of the capacity in which she was acting, was irregular.
 However, the Court added, such deed would in any event operate to bind Gregorio in
its character as a contract and he can thus be compelled by a proper judicial
proceeding to execute a document to carry such contract into effect (specific
performance).

DISPOSITION: Judgment will accordingly be reversed, without any express

adjudication of costs this instance. So ordered.