OLAGUER VS PURUGGANAN JR Facts: A petition for review on the decision of CA affirming the decision of RTC dismissing the Olaguers

suit. P was the owner of shares of stocks of businessday Corp. He was active in the political opposition against Marcos dictatorship. Antiicpating the possibility of his arrest and detention by tem arcos military, he executed a SPS appointing his attorneys-in-fact Locsin, Joaquin and hofilena for the purpose of selling or transferring his shares of stocks with Busonessday. During his trial under the SPA, in order to cancel his shares of stocks even before they are sold for the purpose of concealing that he was a stockholder. The parties acknowledge the SPA before Emilio Purugganan, the corporate Sec and the notary public. He was arrested for arson and locsin ordered purugganan to cancel the shares in thr books of the corp and to transfer them to Locsins name. When he was released from detention, he discovered that he was no longer registered as stickholder. He demanded that respondents restore to him full ownership , but they refused to do so. He filed a complaint before RTC against purugganana and locsin to declare as illegal the sale of the shares of stock. He alleged that respondent exceeded his authority under the SPA. SPA only applied in absence and incapacity. RTC dismissed and found the sale of shares b/w him and respondent locsin was valid. Issue: WON the CA erred in ruling that there was perfected sale. Ruling: Petitioner sought to impose a strict construction of the SPA by limiting th deifiniton of the word ABSENCE to a condition wherein a person disappears from his domicile, his whereabouts being unknown without leaving an agent to administer his proeprty. Incapacity for olaguer would be limited to mean minority, insanity, imbecility, the state of being deaf-mute, prodigality and civil interdiction. He claims that his arrest and subsequent detention are not among the instances covered by the terms absence and incapacity as provided in the SPA in favor of locsin. It is a general rule the SPA must be strictly construed, however, the rule is not absolute and should not be applied to the extent of destroying the very purpose of the power. He already authorized agents to do specific acts of admniistraiton and no longer necessitated the appointment of one by the court.

Absence and incapacity by their everyday usage means the state of not being present and the inability to act given to context that the SPA authorizes the agents to attend stockholders meeitgns and vote in behalf of petitioner, to sell the shares of stocks and other related acts. This construction covers the situation wherein petritoner was arrested and detained. Which he admitted in his testimony.