Publication and Effectivity

G.R. No. 12579 – Jimenez v. Rabot

Street, J.

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 Rabat was proper and Gregorio
cannot recover.

DOCTRINE
Where the owner of real property decides to confer upon an attorney in fact the authority to sell
the same, it is necessary that the authority should be expressed in writing but it is not necessary
that the same be in a public document, nor is it necessary that the property to be sold be
expressly described. It is sufficient if the authority is so expressed as to determine without doubt
the limits of the agent’s authority.

FACTS

1. Gregorio Jimenez owns a land (approximately 3 hectares) situated in the municipality of

Alaminos, Province of Pangasinan.
2. Gregorio, in 1911, was staying in Vigan and his property in Alaminos was confided by
him to the care of his elder sister, Nicolasa Jimenez (agent).
3. On February 7, 1911, Gregorio wrote his sister that he was pressed for money and
asked her to sell one of his parcels of land so he could pay his debts using the proceeds
from the sale.
4. Acting upon this letter, Nicolasa approached Pedro Rabot, the defendant, and the latter
agreed to buy the land for PHP 500.
5. Rabot paid PHP 250 and it was agreed that the deed of conveyance would be executed
when the balance is settled.
6. One year later, Gregorio returned to Alaminos and demanded from his sister the land in
question.
7. Nicolasa refused to do so and Gregorio instituted an action to recover his land from her
control. Gregorio won the case in August 12, 1913.
8. Meanwhile, on May 31, 1912, Nicolasa executed and delivered to Rabot the deed
purporting to convey the land.
9. Rabot thus acquired the possession of the deed from Nicolasa during the pendency of
the litigation but it does not appear that he was cognizant of that circumstance at that
time.

1
 10. Gregorio instituted an action to recover from Pedro Rabot the said parcel of land. The
lower court ruled in favor of Rabot, thus Gregorio appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE with HOLDING

Whether a power of attorney to convey real property ought to appear in a public document. –
NO.

 It is established doctrine that a private document is competent to create, transmit, modify

or extinguish a right in real property.
 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).

Whether the authority conferred on Nicolasa by the letter of her brother was sufficient to enable
her to bind her brother. – YES.

 The only provisions in law related to this point are Article 1713 of the Civil Code and
subsection 5 of Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 Article 1713 requires that the authority to alienate land shall be contained in an express
mandate.
 On the other hand, the Code of Civil Procedure states that the authority of the agent
must be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged.
 The Court held that the authority in the letter sufficiently complied with both
requirements.
 Petitioners urged that in order for the authority to be sufficient under the Code of Civil
Procedure the authorization must have a particular description of the property to be sold.
o The Court said that there is no such requirement in subsection 5 section 335 of
the Code, and it would not be legitimate to read such a requirement into it.
o As long as the agent acts within the limits authorized by the principal, the latter
cannot question the validity of his act.
 The Court also held that Nicolasa acted within the scope of the authority which had been
conferred upon her.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 The Court also added that the problem concerned in the case is the sufficiency of the
power of attorney not the sufficiency of the note or memorandum of the contract or
agreement of sale required by the same subsection. (Jurisprudence dictates that there
must be a description of the property subject of the sale for the contract to be sufficient).

2
  The aforementioned principle however, is not applicable to the present case which
relates to the sufficiency of the authorization, not to the sufficiency of the contract or
conveyance.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

Judgment will accordingly be reversed without any express adjudication of costs of this
instance. So ordered.

DIGESTER: Kim