Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 185 views

    Jimenez v. Rabot

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    Gregorio Jimenez inherited land from his father and put his sister Nicolasa in charge of the property while he was away. He wrote Nicolasa a letter asking her to sell one of his parcels of land to pay off his debts. Nicolasa approached Pedro Rabot about buying the land, and he agreed to pay 500 pesos, with 250 paid up front. However, Nicolasa did not send any money to Gregorio. When Gregorio returned, he demanded the money from Nicolasa but she refused. Gregorio then sued to recover the land. The Supreme Court ruled that Nicolasa's authority under the letter to sell one of Gregorio's parcels of land was sufficient to bind him, as she acted within the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jimenez v. Rabot

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    185 views2 pages
    Gregorio Jimenez inherited land from his father and put his sister Nicolasa in charge of the property while he was away. He wrote Nicolasa a letter asking her to sell one of his parcels of land to pay off his debts. Nicolasa approached Pedro Rabot about buying the land, and he agreed to pay 500 pesos, with 250 paid up front. However, Nicolasa did not send any money to Gregorio. When Gregorio returned, he demanded the money from Nicolasa but she refused. Gregorio then sued to recover the land. The Supreme Court ruled that Nicolasa's authority under the letter to sell one of Gregorio's parcels of land was sufficient to bind him, as she acted within the

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gregorio Jimenez inherited land from his father and put his sister Nicolasa in charge of the property while he was away. He wrote Nicolasa a letter asking her to sell one of his parcels of land to pay off his debts. Nicolasa approached Pedro Rabot about buying the land, and he agreed to pay 500 pesos, with 250 paid up front. However, Nicolasa did not send any money to Gregorio. When Gregorio returned, he demanded the money from Nicolasa but she refused. Gregorio then sued to recover the land. The Supreme Court ruled that Nicolasa's authority under the letter to sell one of Gregorio's parcels of land was sufficient to bind him, as she acted within the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    185 views2 pages

    Jimenez v. Rabot

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    Gregorio Jimenez inherited land from his father and put his sister Nicolasa in charge of the property while he was away. He wrote Nicolasa a letter asking her to sell one of his parcels of land to pay off his debts. Nicolasa approached Pedro Rabot about buying the land, and he agreed to pay 500 pesos, with 250 paid up front. However, Nicolasa did not send any money to Gregorio. When Gregorio returned, he demanded the money from Nicolasa but she refused. Gregorio then sued to recover the land. The Supreme Court ruled that Nicolasa's authority under the letter to sell one of Gregorio's parcels of land was sufficient to bind him, as she acted within the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-12579 July 27, 1918 Gregorio then instituted an action to recover


    the land.
    GREGORIO JIMENEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
    PEDRO RABOT , NICOLASA JIMENEZ and Nicolasa Jimenez executed and delivered to
    her husband EMILIO RODRIGUEZ, Pedro Rabot a deed purporting to convey to
    defendants. PEDRO RABOT
    him the parcel of land which is the subject of
    DOCTRINE: this controversy. Pedro Rabot acquired
    possession under the deed from Nicolasa during
    Article 1713 of the Civil Code requires that the
    the pendency of the litigation appear that he
    authority to alienate land shall be contained in
    was at the time cognizant of that circumstance
    an express mandate
    ISSUE:
    The purpose in giving a power of attorney is to
    substitute the mind and hand of the agent for whether the authority conferred on Nicolasa by
    the mind and hand of the principal; and if the the letter of February 7, 1911, was sufficient to
    character and extent of the power is so far enable her to bind her brother
    defined as to leave no doubt as to the limits
    RULING:
    within which the agent is authorized to act,
    and he acts within those limits, the principal Article 1713 of the Civil Code requires that the
    cannot question the validity of his act. authority to alienate land shall be contained in
    an express mandate; while subsection 5 of
    FACTS:
    section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure says
    In the division of the estate of their father, that the authority of the agent must be in
    Gregorio inherited a parcel of land in Alaminos. writing and subscribed by the party to be
    While he was staying in Vigan, he confided his charged.
    property to his sister Nicolasa Jimenez.
    The SC held that the authority expressed in the
    He wrote his sister a letter informing the latter letter is sufficient compliance with both
    that he is in dire need of money to pay his requirements.
    debts. Likewise, he requested her to sell one of
    The purpose in giving a power of attorney is to
    his parcels of land and send him the money in
    substitute the mind and hand of the agent for
    order that he might pay his debts. This letter
    the mind and hand of the principal; and if the
    contains no description of the land to be sold
    character and extent of the power is so far
    other than is indicated in the words "one of my
    defined as to leave no doubt as to the limits
    parcels of land" ("uno de mis terrenos").
    within which the agent is authorized to act,
    Nicolasa approached the defendant Pedro and he acts within those limits, the principal
    Rabot, and the latter agreed to buy the parcel in cannot question the validity of his act.
    question for the sum of P500. Two hundred and
    In the present case, the agent was given the
    fifty peso were paid at once, with the
    power to sell either of the parcels of land
    understanding that a deed of conveyance would
    belonging to the plaintiff. We can see no
    be executed when the balance should be paid.
    reason why the performance of an act within
    However, no evidence that the said money was
    the scope of this authority should not bind the
    sent to her brother.
    plaintiff to the same extent as if he had given
    This prompted Gregorio and went to Alaminos the agent authority to sell "any or all" and she
    demanded the money but Nicolasa refused.
    had conveyed only one. Defendant Rabot
    should be absolved.

    You might also like