Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 456 views

    Buncio and Co V Ong Guan

    Uploaded by

    Abraham Guiyab
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of two properties between a judgment creditor and defendants who claim ownership through a deed of sale. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was invalid because the agent who executed it did not have the appropriate power of attorney to alienate the properties. Specifically, a limited power of attorney given in 1931 did not revoke a general power from 1920, so the agent exceeded his authority in the sale. As such, the properties remained subject to execution by the judgment creditor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Buncio and Co V Ong Guan

    Uploaded by

    Abraham Guiyab
    456 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of two properties between a judgment creditor and defendants who claim ownership through a deed of sale. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was invalid because the agent who executed it did not have the appropriate power of attorney to alienate the properties. Specifically, a limited power of attorney given in 1931 did not revoke a general power from 1920, so the agent exceeded his authority in the sale. As such, the properties remained subject to execution by the judgment creditor.

    Original Description:

    blah

    Original Title

    Buncio and Co v Ong Guan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over ownership of two properties between a judgment creditor and defendants who claim ownership through a deed of sale. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was invalid because the agent who executed it did not have the appropriate power of attorney to alienate the properties. Specifically, a limited power of attorney given in 1931 did not revoke a general power from 1920, so the agent exceeded his authority in the sale. As such, the properties remained subject to execution by the judgment creditor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    456 views1 page

    Buncio and Co V Ong Guan

    Uploaded by

    Abraham Guiyab
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of two properties between a judgment creditor and defendants who claim ownership through a deed of sale. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was invalid because the agent who executed it did not have the appropriate power of attorney to alienate the properties. Specifically, a limited power of attorney given in 1931 did not revoke a general power from 1920, so the agent exceeded his authority in the sale. As such, the properties remained subject to execution by the judgment creditor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-40681 October 2, 1934


    DY BUNCIO & COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appelle,
    vs.
    ONG GUAN CAN, ET AL., defendants.
    JUAN TONG and PUA GIOK ENG, appellants.
    NOTE: THIS CASE WAS PROMULGATED IN 1934, SO THE APPLICABLE CIVIL CODE IS NOT THE PRESENT ONE
    OF 1950, AND THE ARTICLES BELOW DONT REFER TO THE NCC. BUT ITS THE DOCTRINE THAT MATTERS
    Facts:
    This suit involves ownership over two particular pieces of property in Dao, Province of Capiz. The properties
    in question are a rice mill and a camarin (a type of chapel). The contention is that the property belongs to its
    judgment debtor, Ong Guan Can, while defendants Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng claim as owner and lessee of
    the owner by virtue of a deed dated July 31, 1931, by Ong Guan Can, Jr.
    After trial the CFI of Capiz held that the deed was invalid and that the property was subject to the
    execution which has been levied on said properties by the judgment creditor of the owner. Defendants Juan
    Tong and Pua Giok bring this appeal and insist that the deed of the 31st of July, 1931, is valid.
    The first recital of the deed is that 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 and gives as his
    authority a particular power of attorney. However, he (Jr.) signed it in his name without any mention of the
    principal. The receipt of money was also addressed to him.
    Aside from this irregularity, the Supreme Court ruled that it was immediately apparent that the power of
    attorney was a limited one, and not a specific one which would include the power to alienate.
    Appellants claim that this defect is cured by what is supposedly a general power of attorney given to the
    same agent in 1920. 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.
    ISSUE: WAS THE SALE VALID?
    HELD: No, there was no appropriate power of attorney. Hence it may be the subject of execution.
    What to take away from this case: When a new power of attorney is accepted, and it is inconsistent with an
    earlier one, it revokes the earlier one.

    You might also like