1/31/2017 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038

[No.12579.July27,1918.]

GREGORIOJIMENEZ,plaintiffandappellee,vs.PEDRORABOT,
NICOLASA JIMENEZ and her husband, EMILIO RODRIGUEZ,
defendants.PEDRORABOT,appellant.

1. SALE OP LAND POWER OF ATTORNEY SPECIFIC

DESCRIPTION OP 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
beexpressedinwritingbutitisnotnecessarythatthepropertyto
besoldshouldbepreciselydescribed.Itissufficientiftheauthority
is so expressed as to determine without doubt the limits of the
agent'sauthority.

2. ID.ID.ID.CASEAT.BAR.Theplaintiff,beingtheownerof
three parcels of land, left the same in the care of his sister as his
agent and went to live in another province. While so absent, he
wrotehertoselloneofhisparcelsandtosendhimthemoney.The
sister found a purchaser and sold one of the parcels but failed to
forward the proceeds to her brother. Afterwards the plaintiff
returned and instituted an action to recover the parcel which had
been sold. Held: That the authority to sell was sufficient and that
theplaintiffcouldnotrecover.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Pangasinan.Llorente,J.
Thefactsarestatedintheopinionofthecourt.
AntonioBengsonforappellant.
JoseRiveraforappellee.

STREET,J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff, Gregorio Jimenez, to

recoverfromthedefendant,PedroRabot,aparceloflandsituated
inthemunicipalityofAlaminos,intheProvinceofPangrasinan,and
describedinthecomplaintasfollows:
"Approximate area of three hectares bounded on the north and
west with land of Pedro Reynoso on the south with land, of
Nicolasa Jimenez and on the east with land of Calixta Apostol
before,atpresentwiththatofJuan

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159f20ff0fe7ae73d6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
1/31/2017 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038

379

VOL.38,JULY27,1918 379
Jimenezvs.Rabot.

Montemayor and Simon del .Barrio. It is situated in Dinmayat

Tancaran, barrio of Alos of this same municipality of Alaminos,
Pangasinan."
Fromajudgmentrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiff,PedroRabot
has appealed but his codefendants, Nicolasa Jimenez and her
husband,whowerecitedbythedefendantforthepurposeofholding
her liable upon her warranty in case of his eviction, have not
appealed.
It is admitted that the parcel of land in question, together with
two other parcels in the same locality originally belonged to the
plaintiff, having been assigned to him as one of the heirs in the
division of the estate of his father. It further appears that while
GregoriowasstayingatVigan,intheProvinceofIlocosSur,during
theyear1911,hispropertyinAlaminoswasconfidedbyhimtothe
careofhiseldersisterNicolasaJimenez.OnFebruary7ofthatyear
he wrote this sister a letter from. Vigan in which he informed her
that he was pressed for money and requested her to sell one of his
parcelsoflandandsendhimthemoneyinorderthathemightpay
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"
("unodemisterrenos").
ActinguponthisletterNicolasaapproachedthedefendantPedro
Rabot,andthelatteragreedtobuytheparcelinquestionforthesum
of P500. Two hundred and fifty pesos were paid at once, with the
understanding that a deed of conveyance would be executed when
the balance should be paid. Nicolasa admits having received this
paymentofP250atthetimestatedbutthereisnoevidencethatshe
sentanyofittoherbrother.
About one year later Gregorio came down to Alaminos and
demandedthathissistershouldsurrenderthispieceoflandtohim,it
being then in her possession. She ref used upon some pretext or
othertodosoandasaresultGregorio,inconjunctionwithothersof
hisbrothers.andsisters,whosepropertieswerealsointhehandsof
Nicolasa,institutedanactionintheCourtofFirstInstanceforthe

380

380 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Jimenezvs.Rabot.

purpose of recovering their land from her control. This action was
decided favorably to the plaintiffs upon August 12, 1913 and no
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159f20ff0fe7ae73d6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
1/31/2017 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038

appealwastakenfromthejudgment.
Meanwhile,uponMay31,1912,NicolasaJimenezexecutedand
delivered to Pedro Rabot a deed purporting to convey to him the
parcel of land which is the subject of this controversy. The deed
recitesthatthesalewasmadeinconsiderationofthesumofP500,
the payment of which is acknowledged. Pedro Rabot went into
possession, and the property was found in his hands at the time
when final judgment wa entered in favor of the plaintiffs in the
action above mentioned. It will thus be seen that Pedro Rabot
acquired possession under the deed from Nicolasa during the
pendency of the litigation in which she was defendant but it does
not positively appear that he was at the time cognizant of that
circumstance.
Inconsideringthequestionspresentedbythisappealoneortwo
preliminaryobservationsmaybemade.Thefirstisthat,asamatter
of formality, a power of attorney to convey real property ought to
appearinapublicdocument,justasanyotherinstrumentintendedto
transmitorconveyaninterestinsuchpropertyoughttoappearina
publicdocument.(Art.1280,CivilCode.)Butinasmuchasitisan
establisheddoctrinethataprivatedocumentiscompetenttocreate,
transmit,modify,orextinguisharightinrealproperty(ThungaChui
vs.QueBentec,2Phil.Rep.,561CoutoSorianovs.Cortes,8Phil.
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. Again, supposing that the letter contained
adequateauthorityforNicolasatosellthepropertyinquestion,her
actioninconveyingthepropertyinherownname,withoutshowing
the capacity in which she acted, was doubtless irregular.
Nevertheless, such deed would in any event operate to bind her
brother,theplaintiff,initscharacterasacontract(Lyonvs.Pollock,
99U.S.,66825L.ed.,265),andsupposingthattheauthoritywas
sufficient,hecouldbecom

381

VOL.38,JULY27,1918 381
Jimenezvs.Rabot.

pelled by a proper judicial proceeding to execute a document to

carrysuchcontractintoeffect.(Art.1279,CivilCode.)
The principal question. for consideration therefore in the end
resolvesitselfintothis,whethertheauthorityconferredonNicolasa
by the letter of February 7, 1911, was sufficient to' enable her to
bind her brother. The only provisions of law bearing on this point
arecontainedinarticle1713oftheCivilCodeandinsection335of
theCodeofCivilProcedure.Article1713oftheCivilCoderequires
that the authority to alienate land shall be contained in an express
mandate while subsection 5 of section 335 of the Code of Civil
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159f20ff0fe7ae73d6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
1/31/2017 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038

Proceduresaysthattheauthorityoftheagentmustbeinwritingand
subscribedbythepartytobecharged.Weareoftheopinionthatthe
authorityexpressedintheletterisasufficientcompliancewithboth
requirements.
It has been urged here that in order for the authority to be
sufficient under section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure the
authorization must contain a particular description of the property
which the agent is to be permitted to sell. There is no such
requirement in subsection 5 of section 335 and we do not believe
that it would be legitimate to read such a requirement into it. The
purposeingivingapowerofattorneyistosubstitutethemindand
handoftheagentforthemindandhandoftheprincipalandifthe
character and extent of the power is so far defined as to leave no
doubtastothelimitswithinwhichtheagentisauthorizedtoact,and
heactswithinthoselimits,theprincipalcannotquestionthevalidity
of his act. It is not necessary that the particular act to be
accomplishedshouldbepredestinatedbythelanguageofthepower.
The question to be answered always, after the power has been
exercised, is rather this: Was the act which the agent performed
within the scope of his authority? In the case before us, if the
question is asked whether the act performed by Nicolasa Jimenez
was within the scope of the authority which had been conferred
uponher,theanswermustbeobviouslyintheaffirmative.

382

382 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Jimenezvs.Rabot.

'ltshouldnotescapeobservationthattheproblemwithwhichweare
here concerned relates to the sufficiency of the power of attorney
under subsection 5 of section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and not to the sufficiency of the note or memorandum of the
contract, or agreement of sale, required by the same subsection, in
connection with the first paragraph of the same section. 'lt is well
settled in the jurisprudence of England and the United States that
whentheowner,orhisagent,comestomakeacontracttosell,ora
conveyance to effect a transfer, there must be a description of the
property which is the subject of the sale or conveyance. This is
necessaryofcoursetodefinetheobjectofthecontract.(Brockway
vs.Frost,40Minn.,155Carrvs.PassaicLandetc.Co.,19N.J.Eq.,
424Lippincottvs.Bridgewater,55N.J.Eq.,208Craigvs.Zelian,
137Cal.,10520Cyc.,271.)
The general rule here applicable is that the description must be
sufficientlydefinitetoidentifythelandeitherfromtherecitalsofthe
contractordeedorfromexternalfactsreferredtointhedocument,
therebyenablingonetodeterminetheidentityofthelandandifthe
descriptionisuncertainonitsfaceorisshowntobeapplicablewith
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159f20ff0fe7ae73d6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
1/31/2017 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038

equal plausibility to more than one tract, it is insufficient. The

principle embodied in these decisions is not, in our opinion,
applicabletothepresentcase,whichrelatestothesufficiencyofthe
authorization,nottothesufficiencyofthecontractorconveyance.It
isunquestionablethatthedeedwhichNicolasaexecutedcontainsa
properdescriptionofthepropertywhichshepurportedtoconvey.
There is ample authority to the effect that a person may by a
general power of attorney authorize an agent to sell "all" the land
possessed by the principal, or all that he possesses in a particular
city,county,orstate.(Ropervs.McPadden,48Cal.,346Rowndvs.
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
authorizesanagenttosellafarm("myfarm")inacertaincounty,

383

VOL.38,JULY29,1918 383
GovernmentofthePhilippineIslandsvs.Avtta.

thisissufficient,ifitbeshownthatsuchpartyhasonlyonefarmin
that county. (Marriner vs. Dennison, 78 Cal., 202.) In Linton vs.
Moorhead(209Pa.St,646),thepowerauthorizedtheagenttosell
orconvey"anyoralltracts,lots,orparcels"oflandbelongingtothe
plaintiff.Itwasheldthatthiswasadequate.InLyonvs.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
andtothatendhewasauthorizedtopurchase,sell,collect,andpay,
etc.Itwasheldthatthiswasasufficientpower.
Inthepresentcasetheagentwasgiventhepowertoselleitherof
theparcelsoflandbelongingtotheplaintiff.Wecanseenoreason
why the performance of an act within the scope of this authority
shouldnotbindtheplaintifftothesameextentasifhehadgiventhe
agentauthoritytosell"anyorall"andshehadconveyedonlyone'.
Fromwhathasbeensaiditisevidentthatthelowercourtshould
have absolved the defendant Pedro Rabot f rom the complaint.
Judgment will accordingly be reversed, without any express
adjudicationofcostsofthisinstance.Soordered.

Torres,Johnson,Malcolm,Avancena,andFisher,JJ.,concur.

Judgmentreversed.

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159f20ff0fe7ae73d6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
1/31/2017 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME038

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159f20ff0fe7ae73d6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6