Scribd
Upload
123 views1 page

Dy Buncio V Ong Guan Can

The deed dated July 31, 1931 purporting to sell a rice mill and camarin is invalid. The agent, Ong Guan Can Jr., who signed the deed did not have the express authority to alienate the properties under the power of attorney provided. While an earlier 1920 power of attorney was a general power, it was revoked by a subsequent 1928 power of attorney that granted only limited powers, as a new appointment with different powers must supplant the earlier one to have any meaning. Therefore, the true owner, Ong Guan Can, still held title to the properties subject to attachment by his judgment creditor.

Uploaded by

gabbybor
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
123 views1 page

Dy Buncio V Ong Guan Can

The deed dated July 31, 1931 purporting to sell a rice mill and camarin is invalid. The agent, Ong Guan Can Jr., who signed the deed did not have the express authority to alienate the properties under the power of attorney provided. While an earlier 1920 power of attorney was a general power, it was revoked by a subsequent 1928 power of attorney that granted only limited powers, as a new appointment with different powers must supplant the earlier one to have any meaning. Therefore, the true owner, Ong Guan Can, still held title to the properties subject to attachment by his judgment creditor.

Uploaded by

gabbybor
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 v Ong Guan Can The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. Costs against appellants.

So
G.R. No. L-40681 | October 2, 1934 | Hull, J. | Group 2 ordered.

Plaintiff-appellee: DY BUNCIO & COMPANY, INC.


Defendants: ONG GUAN CAN, ET AL.
Appellants: JUAN TONG and PUA GIOK ENG

Topic: Modes of Extinguishing Agency; Revocation coupled with an interest

Facts
 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
 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.

Issue W/N the deed dated July 31, 1931 is valid NO

Held
 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 23rd 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 CC)
 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.
 Art 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.
o 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 Can not having been divested by the so-called
deed of July 31, 1931, his properties are subject to attachment and
execution.

You might also like