Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    Dy Buncio V Ong Guan Can

    Uploaded by

    gabbybor
    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 While an earlier 1920 power of attorney was a general power, it was revoked by a subsequent 1928 power of attorney that granted only limited powers, as a new appointment with different powers must supplant the earlier one to have any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.

    Copyright:

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

    Dy Buncio V Ong Guan Can

    Uploaded by

    gabbybor
    68 views1 page
    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 While an earlier 1920 power of attorney was a general power, it was revoked by a subsequent 1928 power of attorney that granted only limited powers, as a new appointment with different powers must supplant the earlier one to have any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.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Dy Buncio v Ong Guan Can.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    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 While an earlier 1920 power of attorney was a general power, it was revoked by a subsequent 1928 power of attorney that granted only limited powers, as a new appointment with different powers must supplant the earlier one to have any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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    68 views1 page

    Dy Buncio V Ong Guan Can

    Uploaded by

    gabbybor
    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.

    Copyright:

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