G.R. No. L-12579




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-12579 July 27, 1918 GREGORIO JIMENEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO RABOT, NICOLASA JIMENEZ and her husband EMILIO RODRIGUEZ, defendants. PEDRO RABOT, appellant. Antonio Bengson for appellant. Jose Rivera for appellee. STREET, J.: This action was instituted by the plaintiff, Gregorio Jimenez, to recover from the defendant, Pedro Rabot, a parcel of land situated in the municipality of Alaminos, in the Province of Pangasinan, and described in the complaint as follows: 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, at present with that of Juan Montemayor and Simon del Barrio. It is situated in Dinmayat Tancaran, barrio of Alos of this same municipality of Alaminos, Pangasinan. From a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Pedro Rabot has appealed; but his co-defendants, Nicolasa Jimenez and her husband, who were cited by the defendant for the purpose of holding 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 of the heirs in the division of the estate of his father. It is further 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. On February 7 of that year 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 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" ("uno de mis terrenos"). 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. Two hundred and fifty peso 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 payment of P250 at the time stated; but there is no evidence that she sent any of it to her brother. About one 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, in conjunction with others of his brothers and sisters, whose properties were also in the hands of Nicolasa, 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 upon August 12, 1913; and no appeal was taken from the judgment. Meanwhile, upon May 31, 1912, 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 went into possession, and the property was found in his hands at the time when final judgment was 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 appear that he was at the time cognizant of that circumstance. In considering the questions presented by this appeal one or two preliminary observations may be made. The first is that, 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. Again, 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.) The principal question for consideration therefore in the end resolves itself into this, whether the authority conferred on Nicolasa 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 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; while 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. We are of the opinion that the authority expressed in the letter is a sufficient compliance with both 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 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. 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 upon her, the answer must be obviously in the affirmative. It should not escape observation that the problem with which we are 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. It is well-settled in the jurisprudence of England and the United States that when the owner, or his agent, comes to make a contract to sell, or a conveyance to effect a transfer, there must be a description of the property which is the subject of the sale or conveyance. This is necessary of course to define the object of the contract. (Brockway vs. Frost, 40 Minn., 155; Carr vs. Passaic Land etc. Co., 19 N. J. Eq., 424; Lippincott vs. Bridgewater, 55 N. J. Eq., 208; Craig vs. Zelian, 137 Cal., 105; 20 Cyc., 271.) The general rule here applicable is that the description must be sufficiently definite to identify the land either from the recitals of the contract or deed or from external facts referred to in the document, thereby enabling one to determine the identity of the land and if the description is uncertain on its face or is shown to be applicable with equal plausibility to more than one tract, it is insufficient. The principle embodied in these decisions is not, in our opinion, applicable to the present case, which relates to the sufficiency of the authorization, not to the sufficiency of the contract or conveyance. It is unquestionable that the deed which Nicolasa executed contains a proper description of the property which she purported to convey. 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. 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. Torres, Johnson, Malcolm, Avanceña and Fisher, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation