Scribd
Upload
116 views1 page

Dy Buncio and Co., V. Ong Guan Can, 60 Phil. 696 (1934)

The case involves a dispute over ownership of a rice mill and building. The plaintiff claims the properties belong to its debtor, while the defendants claim ownership under a deed from the debtor's son. The court found the deed invalid and the properties subject to the plaintiff's execution, as the son's power of attorney did not expressly allow property transfers. The court held that a new limited power of attorney would revoke an earlier general one if inconsistent.

Uploaded by

Roi Angeli V. Domingo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
116 views1 page

Dy Buncio and Co., V. Ong Guan Can, 60 Phil. 696 (1934)

The case involves a dispute over ownership of a rice mill and building. The plaintiff claims the properties belong to its debtor, while the defendants claim ownership under a deed from the debtor's son. The court found the deed invalid and the properties subject to the plaintiff's execution, as the son's power of attorney did not expressly allow property transfers. The court held that a new limited power of attorney would revoke an earlier general one if inconsistent.

Uploaded by

Roi Angeli V. Domingo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DY BUNCIO AND CO., V. ONG GUAN CAN, 60 PHIL.

696 [1934]

FACTS:

This is a suit over a rice-mill and camarín. 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 by Ong Guan Can, jr.

After trial the Court held that the deed was invalid and that the property was subject
to the execution which had been levied on said properties by the judgment creditor of
the owner. Defendants Juan Tong and Pua Giok Eng bring this appeal and insist that
the deed 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 4, Sons, sells the rice-mill and
camarín for P13,000 and gives as his authority the power of attorney 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.

ISSUE:

Whether the power of attorney is general

HELD:

No.

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.)

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.

You might also like