G.R. No.

L-29917 December 29, 1928

JOSE M. KATIGBAK, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TAI HING CO., defendant.

PO SUN and PO CHING intervenors-appellants.

Power of Attorney
Art. 1874. When a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the
authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void.

Agent: Gabino Barreto Po Ejap

Principal: Po Tecsi executed a general power of attorney in favor of his brother Gabino Barreto
Po Ejap.

FACTS:

Po Ejap was the owner of a Tacloban land w/ improvements. Po Tecsi executed a GPA in favor
of his brother Po Ejap. Later on, Po Ejap sold the property to Po Tecsi. Using the power
conferred by his brother in the GPA, Po Ejap sold the property to Katigbak. Po Tecsi leased the
property from Po Ejap, who administered it in the name of Katigbak. Po Tecsi left unpaid rents
until he died. Po Tecsi’s son, Po Sun Suy and Po Ching leased the property. Po Sun Suy was
appointed administrator of the estate of deceased Po Tecsi and filed an inventory of the estate
which included the Tacloban property. Katigbak sold the property to Po Sun Boo and filed an
action against Tai Hing Co. (company of Po Sun Suy and Po Ching) for recovery of rent before
CFI Manila. CFI ordered Po Sun Suy and Po Ching to pay Katigbak the accrued rentals. Po Sun
Suy and Po Ching appealed to SC, claiming that Katigbak does not own the property (hence,
not entitled to the rentals) because Po Ejap was not authorized under the GPA to sell the
property, since it was executed before Po Ejap sold said property to Po Tecsi.

SC held that Po Ejap was authorized to sell the property because the power to sell any kind of
realty “belonging” to the principal means not only the property he had at the time of execution of
the power, but also what he might acquire afterwards while the power was in force. Katigbak
was the owner of the Tacloban property.

ISSUE:

Whether Ejap had the authority to sell the land to Katigbak under POA executed by Tecsi even
though such POA was executed even before Tecsi had bought land from Ejap?

RULING:

1) Ejap had authority. Power here was general and authorized Ejap to sell any kind of realty
"belonging" (pertenezcan) to the principal. The use of subjunctive "pertenezcan" (might belong)
and not the indicative "pertenecen" (belong) means that Po Tecsi meant not only the property
he had at the time of execution but also what he might afterwards have.
2) Power of attorney not recorded in registry still binds principal to acknowledge acts performed
by Ejap.
While it‘s true that power of attorney not recorded in registry of deeds is ineffective in order that
an agent or attorney in fact may validly perform acts in the name of his principal, and any act
performed by agent by virtue of power is ineffective against 3rd person who, in good faith, may
have acquired a right, it does however, bind principal to acknowledge acts performed by his
attorney in fact regarding said property.

Here, while it‘s true that non-registration of POA by Po Tecsi prevents sale made by Ejap to
Katigbak from being recorded in registry of deeds, it‘s not ineffective to compel Tecsi to
acknowledge said sale.

Sale was not fraudulent even if power and sale were not recorded in the registry. Record shows
that Po Tecsi was aware of sale as shown by several letters complaining of pressing demands
of his bro Ejap to send him rents of land, his promises to send them and remittance were tacit
acknowledgment that he occupied land no longer as owner but only as lessee.