Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Dy Buncio and Co v Ong Guan Gan This is a suit over a rice mill and camarin situated at Dao, Province

of Capiz. Plaintiff claims 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 Court of First Instance 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 the power of attorney dated the 23d of May, 1928, a copy of this public instrument being attached to the deed and recorded with the deed in the office of the register of deeds of Capiz. The receipt of the money acknowledged in the deed was to the agent, and the deed was signed by the agent in his own name and without any words indicating that he was signing it for the principal. 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. (Article 1713 of the Civil Code.) 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. 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. The title of Ong Guan Gan not having been divested by the so-called deed of July 31, 1931, his properties are subject to attachment and execution. A special power of atty giving the son the authority to sell the principals properties is deemed revoked by a subsequent general power of atty that does not give such power to the son, and any sale effected thereafter by the son in the name of the father would be void. The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. Costs against appellants. So ordered.

Coleongco v Claparols Eduardo L. Claparols, operated a factory for the manufacture of nails in Talisay, Occidental Negros, under the style of "Claparols Steel & Nail Plant". The raw material, nail wire, was imported from foreign sources, specially from Belgium; and Claparols had a regular dollar allocation therefor, granted by the Import Control Commission and the Central Bank. The marketing of the nails was handled by the "ABCD Commercial" of Bacolod, which was owned by a Chinaman named Kho To. Losses compelled Claparols in 1953 to look for someone to finance his imports of nail wires. At first, Kho To agreed to do the financing, but on April 25, 1953, the Chinaman introduced his compadre, appellant Vicente Coleongco, to the appellee, recommending said appellant to be the financier in the stead of Kho To. Claparols agreed, and on April 25 of

that year a contract (Exhibit B) was perfected between them whereby Coleongco undertook to finance and put up the funds required for the importation of the nail wire, which Claparols bound himself to convert into nails at his plant. Instead of putting up all the necessary money needed to finance the imports of raw material, Coleongco merely advanced 25% in cash on account of the price and had the balance covered by surety agreements executed by Claparols and others as solidary, (joint and several) guarantors (see Exhibits G, H, I). The upshot of this arrangement was that Claparols was made to shoulder 3/4 of the payment for the imports, contrary to the financing agreement. Paragraph 11 of the latter expressly denied Coleongco any power or authority to bind Claparols without previous consultation and authority. When the balances for the cost of the importations became due, Coleongco, in some instances, paid it with the dealers' advances to the nail factory against future sales without the knowledge of Claparols (Exhibits "K" to K-11, K13). Under paragraphs 8 and 11 of the financing agreement, Coleongco was to give preference to the operating expenses before sharing profits, so that until the operating costs were provided for, Coleongco had no right to apply the factory's income to pay his own obligations. Around mid-November of 1956, appellee Claparols was disagreeably surprised by service of an alias writ of execution to enforce a judgment obtained against him by the Philippine National Bank, despite the fact that on the preceding September he had submitted an amortization plan to settle the account. Worried and alarmed, Claparols immediately left for Manila to confer with the bank authorities. Upon arrival, he learned to his dismay that the execution had been procured because of derogatory information against appellee (in the form of two letters) that had reached the bank from his associate, appellant Coleongco. When Claparols got back to the factory, he dismissed Coleongco as assistant manager and learned of the bad faith of Coleongco through his machinery superintendent and through some letters he found in Coleongcos office. it must not be forgotten that a power of attorney can be made irrevocable by contract only in the sense that the principal may not recall it at his pleasure; but coupled with interest or not, the authority certainly can be revoked for a just cause, such as when the attorney-in-fact betrays the interest of the principal, as happened in this case. It is not open to serious doubt that the irrevocability of the power of attorney may not be used to shield the perpetration of acts in bad faith, breach of confidence, or betrayal of trust, by the agent for that would amount to holding that a power coupled with an interest authorizes the agent to commit frauds against the principal. Our new Civil Code, in Article 1172, expressly provides the contrary in prescribing that responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations, and that any waiver of action for future fraud is void. It is also on this principle that the Civil Code, in its Article 1800, declares that the powers of a partner, appointed as manager, in the articles of copartnership are irrevocable without just or lawful cause; and an agent with power coupled with an interest can not stand on better ground than such a partner in so far as irrevocability of the power is concerned. No error was, therefore, committed by the trial court in declaring the financing contract properly resolved by Claparols or in rendering judgment against appellant in favor of appellee for the said amount of P81,387.37. The basic rule of contracts requires parties to act loyally toward each other in the pursuit of the common end, and appellant clearly violated the rule of good faith prescribed by Art. 1315 of the new Civil Code. The lower court also allowed Claparols P50,000 for damages, material, moral, and exemplary, caused by the appellant Coleongco's acts in maliciously undermining appellee's credit that led the Philippine National Bank to secure a writ of execution against Claparols. Undeniably, the attempts of Coleongco to discredit and "squeeze" Claparols out of his own factory and business could not but cause the latter mental anguish and serious anxiety, as found by the court below, for which he is entitled to compensation; and the malevolence that lay behind appellee's actions justified also the imposition of exemplary or deterrent damages (Civ. Code, Art. 2232). While the award could have been made larger

without violating the canons of justice, the discretion in fixing such damages primarily lay in the trial court, and we feel that the same should be respected.

Herrera vs Luy Kim Guan FACTS: The Plaintiff Natividad Herrera is the legitimate daughter of Luis Herrera, now deceased and who died in China sometime after he went to that country in the last part of 1931 or early part of 1932.The said Luis Herrera in his lifetime was the owner of three (3) parcels of land and their improvements, known as Lots 1740, 4465 and 4467 of Expediente No. 5, G.L.R.O. Before leaving for China, however, Luis Herrera executed on December 1, 1931, a deed of General Power of Attorney, which authorized and empowered the defendant Kim Guan, among others to administer and sell the properties of said Luis Herrera. Lot 1740 was sold by the defendant Luy Kim in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of the deceased Luis Herrera to Luy Chay on September 11, 1939. On January 31, 1947, the said Luy Chay executed a deed of sale, Exhibit "E", in favor of Lino Bangayan. Luis Herrera thru his attorney-in-fact Luy Kim Guan, one of the defendants, sold to Nicomedes Salazar his one half participation in these two (2) lots (4465 and 4467) (marami pang transactions nangyari na involved yung 3 parcel of land.)As admitted by both parties (plaintiffs and defendants), Luis Herrera is now deceased, but as to the specific and precise date of his death the evidence of both parties failed to show. It is the contention of plaintiff-appellant that all the transactions mentioned in the preceding quoted portion of the decision were fraudulent and were executed after the death of Luis Herrera and, consequently, when the power of attorney was no longer operative. ISSUE: WON these transactions are null and void and of no effect because they were executed by the attorney-in-fact after the death of his Principal. RULING: No, since the only evidence presented by the Plaintiff-appellant in this respect is a supposed letter received from a certain "Candi", dated at Amoy in November, 1936, purporting to give information that Luis Herrera (without mentioning his name) had died in August of that year. This piece of evidence was properly rejected by the lower court for lack of identification. On the other hand, we have the testimony of the witness Chung Lian to the effect that when he was in Amoy the year 1940, Luis Herrera visited him and had a conversation with him, showing that the latter was still alive at the time. Also, there was no proof that agent was aware of death of the principal; death of the principal does not render the act of an agent unenforceable, where the agent had no knowledge of such extinguishment of the agency Doctrine: The death of the principal does not render the act of an agent unenforceable, where the latter had no knowledge of such extinguishment the agency.