PNB v.STA.

MARIA FACTS:

Two Special Powers of Attorney were executed in favor of

Maximo Sta. Maria. o Executed by his 6 siblings to mortgage a 16-odd hectare parcel of land o Executed by Valeriana Sta. Maria to borrow money and mortgage any real estate owned by her. Maximo obtained two separate loans from PNB, one in the amount of 15K but only 13,216.11 was extended by PNB and 23K where only P12,427.57 was extended. Two chattel mortgages on standing crops were executed by him in favor of PNB- guaranteed by surety bonds by Associated Insurance and Surety Co. The records of crop load show other securities given such as the land jointly owned by his bros and sis. February 10, 1961- PNB filed for collection of unpaid balances on two agricultural sugar crop loans against Maximo and his siblings. RTC ruled in favor of PNB. Only the 6 siblings appealed judgment. Siblings contention: They only authorized Maximo to mortgage land and not borrow money and that they did not benefit from the loans obtained by Maximo. Therefore, they should be only liable to the value of property which they authorized to be given as security for loans.

ISSUE: WON siblings are only liable for value of land? YES. HELD:

Yes except for Valeriana who issued a separate SPOA authorizing Maximo to borrow money on her behalf. In Bank of P. I. v. De Coster, "where in an instrument powers and duties are specified and defined, that all of such powers and duties are limited andconfined to those which are specified and defined, and all other powers and duties are excluded. In De Villa vs. Fabricante, where the power of attorney given to the husband by the wife was limited to a grant of authority to mortgage a parcel of land titled in the wife's name, the wife may not be held liable for the payment of the mortgage debt contracted by the husband, as the authority to mortgage does not carry with it the authority to contract obligation. Maximo and Valeriana are the only ones liable for the loands and that the other siblings liability only correspond to real estate mortgage and the foreclosure and sale of mortgage. Maximos argument that "a mortgage is simply an accessory contract, and that to effect the mortgage, a loan has to be secured" falls, far short of the mark. Maximo had indeed, secured the loan on his own account and the defendants-appellants had authorized him to mortgage their respective undivided shares of the real property jointly owned by them as security for the loan. But that was the extent of their authority land consequent liability, to have the real property answer for the loan in case of non-payment. The outcome might be different if there had been an express ratification of the loans by defendants-appellants or if it had been shown that they had been benefited by the crop loans so as to put them in estoppel. Valeriana is only jointly liable with Maximo under Article 1207 NCC, "the concurrence ... of two or more debtors in

one and the same obligation does not imply that ... each one of the (debtors) is bound to render entire compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity." It should be noted that in the additional special power of attorney, Exh. E-1, executed by Valeriana, she did not grant Maximo the authority to bind her solidarity with him on any loans he might secure thereunder.