1883

Jimenez v. Rabot
July 27, 1918 G.R. No. 12579 Street, J.
Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case
SALE OF LAND; POWER OF ATTORNEY; SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY UNNECESSARY. —
Where the owner of real property desires to confer upon an attorney in fact authority to sell the
same, it is necessary that the authority should be expressed in writing; but it is not necessary that
the property to be sold should be precisely described. It is sufficient if the authority is so expressed
as to determine without doubt the limits of the agent’s authority.

The plaintiff instituted an action to recover the parcel which had been sold. Held: That the authority
to sell was sufficient and that the plaintiff could not recover
FACTS
 Gregorio Jimenez instituted the action to recover from the defendant, Pedro Rabot, a parcel
of land situated in the municipality of Alaminos, in the Province of Pangasinan.

 The parcel of land in question appears that while Gregorio was staying at Vigan, in the Province
of Ilocos Sur, during the year 1911, his property in Alaminos was confided by him to the care of
his elder sister Nicolasa Jimenez. He wrote to his sister a letter in which he informed her that
he was pressed for money and requested her to sell one of his parcels of land and send him
the money in order that he might pay his debts. This letter contains no description of the land
to be sold other than is indicated in the words "one of my parcels of land"

 Acting upon this letter Nicolasa approached the defendant Pedro Rabot, and the latter agreed
to buy the parcel in question for the sum of P500. P250 were paid at once, with the
understanding that a deed of conveyance would be executed when the balance should be paid.
His elder sister Nicolasa admits having received this payment of P250 at the time stated; but
there is no evidence that she sent any of it to her brother.

 A year later Gregorio came down to Alaminos and demanded that his sister should surrender
this piece of land to him, it being then in her possession. She refused upon some pretext or
other to do so; and as a result Gregorio instituted an action in the Court of First Instance for the
purpose of recovering their land from her control. This action was decided favorably to the
plaintiffs

 During the pendency of the above mentioned action, Nicolasa Jimenez executed and delivered
to Pedro Rabot a deed purporting to convey to him the parcel of land which is the subject of
this controversy. The deed recites that the sale was made in consideration of the sum of P500,
the payment of which is acknowledged. Pedro Rabot acquired possession under the deed from
Nicolasa during the pendency of the litigation appear that he was at the time cognizant of that
 circumstance.

ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)

 W/N the authority conferred on Nicolasa by the letter was sufficient to enable her to bind her
brother. -YES
RULING (include how the law was applied)
 The only provisions of law bearing on this point are contained in article 1713 of the Civil Code
and in section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Article 1713 of the Civil Code requires that the authority to alienate land shall be
contained in an express mandate;

Subsection 5 of section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that the authority of the
agent must be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged.

 As a matter of formality, a power of attorney to convey real property ought to appear in a

public document, just as any other instrument intended to transmit or convey an interest in
such property ought to appear in a public document. (Art. 1280, Civil Code.) But inasmuch as it
is an established doctrine that a private document is competent to create, transmit, modify, or
extinguish a right in real property (Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec, 2 Phil. Rep., 561; Couto Soriano
vs. Cortes, 8 Phil. Rep., 459), it follows that a power of attorney to convey such property, even
though in the form of a private document, will operate with effect.

 The purpose in giving a power of attorney is to substitute the mind and hand of the agent for
the mind and hand of the principal; and if the character and extent of the power is so far
defined as to leave no doubt as to the limits within which the agent is authorized to act, and he
acts within those limits, the principal cannot question the validity of his act. It is not necessary
that the particular act to be accomplished should be predestinated by the language of the
power.

**

 There is ample authority to the effect that a person may by a general power of attorney an
agent to sell "all" the land possessed by the principal, or all that he possesses in a particular
city, county, or state. (Roper vs. McFadden, 48 Cal., 346; Rownd vs. Davidson, 113 La., 1047;
Carson vs. Ray, 52 N. C., 609; 78 Am. Dec., 267; 31 Cyc., 1229.) It is also held that where a
person authorizes an agent to sell a farm ("my farm") in a certain county, this is sufficient, if it
be shown that such party has only one farm in that country. (Marriner vs. Dennison, 78 Cal.,
202.) In Linton vs. Moorhead (209 Pa. St., 646), the power authorized the agent to sell or
convey "any or all tracts, lots, or parcels" of land belonging to the plaintiff. It was held that this
was adequate. In Lyon vs. Pollock (99 U.S., 668), the owner in effect authorized an agent to sell
everything he had in San Antonio Texas. The authority was held sufficient. In Linan vs. Puno (31
Phil. Rep., 259), the authority granted was to the effect that the agent might administer "the
 interests" possessed by the principal in the municipality of Tarlac and to that end he was
authorized to purchase, sell, collect, and pay, etc. It was held that this was a sufficient power.

 In the present case the agent was given the power to sell either of the parcels of land
belonging to the plaintiff. We can see no reason why the performance of an act within the
scope of this authority should not bind the plaintiff to the same extent as if he had given the
agent authority to sell "any or all" and she had conveyed only one.

DISPOSITIVE

From what have been said it is evident that the lower court should have absolved the defendant Pedro
Rabot from the complaint. Judgment will accordingly be reversed, without any express adjudication of
costs this instance. So ordered.

ADDITIONAL NOTES
As a matter of formality, a power of attorney to convey real property ought to appear in a public
document, just as any other instrument intended to transmit or convey an interest in such property
ought to appear in a public document. (Art. 1280, Civil Code.) But inasmuch as it is an established
doctrine that a private document is competent to create, transmit, modify, or extinguish a right in
real property (Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec, 2 Phil. Rep., 561; Couto Soriano vs. Cortes, 8 Phil. Rep.,
459), it follows that a power of attorney to convey such property, even though in the form of a
private document, will operate with effect.

Supposing that the letter contained adequate authority for Nicolasa to sell the property in question,
her action in conveying the property in her own name, without showing the capacity in which she
acted, was doubtless irregular. Nevertheless, such deed would in any event operate to bind her
brother, the plaintiff in its character as a contract (Lyon vs. Pollock, 99 U.S., 668; 25 L. ed., 265),
and supposing that the authority was sufficient, he could be compelled by a proper judicial
proceeding to execute a document to carry such contract into effect. (Art. 1279, Civil Code.)