Anda di halaman 1dari 2

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 latters 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.
- Ongs 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 Jrs 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)