DY BUNCIO & COMPANY, INC. v. ONG GUAN CAN, et. al.

October 2, 1934 | Hull, J. | Extinguishment/Other Cases

SUMMARY: Dy Buncio, judgment creditor of Ong Guan Can, levied upon the latter’s properties. Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng opposed
claiming that they are the owners of the properties by virtue of a deed executed between them and Ong Jr as agent of Ong. The power of
attorney used for the said deed was a limited one which did not confer right to alienate the said properties. Juan and Pua aver that a general
power of attorney executed previously ‘cured’ such defect. SC held that the new limited power of attorney revoked the first. Thus, the deed
did not validly transfer ownership to Juan and Pua. The properties were properly subject to attachment and execution in favor of Dy
Buncio.

DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS:

- Ong Guan Can, owner of Ong Guan Can & Sons, owned a rice mill and camarin in Dao, Capiz.
- Ong’s judgment creditor, Dy Buncio & Co., levied upon the said rice mill and camarin for satisfaction of the judgment debt. However,
Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng claim that the said properties cannot be subject of attachment and execution because they are the owners of
said property by virtue of a deed (of sale).
- Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng allege that the said deed was executed in their favor by Ong Guan Can, Jr. as agent of Ong Guan Can on
July 31, 1931. Details of the deed:
- 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
- Ong Guan Can Jr gives as his authority the power of attorney dated the 23d of May, 1928. Copy of this public instrument is
attached to the deed and recorded with the deed in the office of the Register of Deeds of Capiz
- Receipt of the money acknowledged in the deed was to the agent
- The deed was signed by the agent in his own name and without any words indicating that he was signing it for the principal
- CFI of Capiz: Deed invalid, thus property subject to execution.
- Juan and Pua appeal to SC. They claim that the defect in the power of attorney (that it is merely a limited one which does not give express
power to alienate the properties) is ‘cured’ because Ong Guan Can had previously given Ong Jr a general power of attorney in 1920.

ISSUE/HELD: WON the deed/sale was valid? NO, Ong Jr’s power of attorney not sufficient to effect sale

RATIO:

1. Leaving aside the irregularities of the deed and coming to the power of attorney referred to in the deed and registered therewith, it is at
once seen that it is not a general power of attorney but a limited one and does not give the express power to alienate the properties in
question.

2. Appellants claim that this defect is cured by Exhibit 1, which purports to be a general power of attorney given to the same agent in
1920 (prior to the limited power of attorney used in the deed). 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.
3. Thus, The title of Ong Guan Can not having been divested by the so-called deed of July 31, 1931, his properties are subject to
attachment and execution.

DISPOSITIVE: Judgment appealed from affirmed. (Attachment and execution of properties by Dy Buncio valid)