Jimenez vs. Rabot

A power of attorney authorizing an agent to sell "one of my parcels of land" is sufficient to bind the principal under Article 1713 of the Civil Code and Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even without a particular description of the property, provided the act performed by the agent is within the scope of the authority conferred.

Gregorio Jimenez and Nicolasa Jimenez were siblings. Gregorio owned three parcels of land in Alaminos, Pangasinan, inherited from his father's estate. In 1911, while Gregorio was residing in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, he entrusted his property in Alaminos to the care of his elder sister Nicolasa. Pedro Rabot was a prospective purchaser who acquired one of Gregorio's parcels through Nicolasa. The dispute required the Court to interpret the sufficiency of authority to alienate real property under both the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure then in force.

Gregorio Jimenez owned a parcel of land of approximately three hectares in Alaminos, Pangasinan, together with two other parcels in the same locality, all inherited from the division of his father's estate. In 1911, while Gregorio was staying in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, he entrusted his property in Alaminos to the care of his elder sister Nicolasa Jimenez. On February 7 of that year, Gregorio wrote Nicolasa a letter from Vigan informing her that he was pressed for money and requesting her to sell one of his parcels of land and send him the proceeds so that he might pay his debts. The letter contained no description of the land to be sold other than the words "one of my parcels of land" ("uno de mis terrenos").

Acting upon this letter, Nicolasa approached Pedro Rabot, who agreed to buy the parcel in question for 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 admitted receiving the P250, but there was no evidence that she sent any of it to her brother. About one year later, Gregorio returned to Alaminos and demanded that Nicolasa surrender the piece of land to him, it being then in her possession. She refused, and Gregorio, together with other brothers and sisters whose properties were also in Nicolasa's hands, instituted an action in the Court of First Instance to recover their land from her control. This action was decided favorably to the plaintiffs on August 12, 1913, and no appeal was taken.

Meanwhile, on May 31, 1912, during the pendency of that litigation, Nicolasa executed and delivered to Pedro Rabot a deed purporting to convey to him the parcel of land in question. The deed recited that the sale was made in consideration of P500, the payment of which was acknowledged. Rabot went into possession, and the property was found in his hands at the time final judgment was entered in the earlier action. There was no indication that Rabot was cognizant of the pending litigation at the time he acquired possession.

Gregorio subsequently instituted the present action to recover the parcel from Rabot. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment in favor of Gregorio, and Rabot appealed. The co-defendants Nicolasa Jimenez and her husband Emilio Rodriguez, who had been cited by Rabot to hold Nicolasa liable on her warranty in case of eviction, did not appeal.

• Sufficiency of Authority: Rabot appealed on the ground that the authority conferred by Gregorio's letter upon Nicolasa was sufficient to enable her to bind her brother, and that the lower court should have absolved him from the complaint.

• Particular Description Required: It was urged 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 was to be permitted to sell, and that the letter's reference to "one of my parcels of land" was inadequate for this purpose.

• Sufficiency of Authority: Whether the letter from Gregorio to Nicolasa, authorizing her to sell "one of my parcels of land," constituted sufficient power of attorney to bind Gregorio under Article 1713 of the Civil Code and Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Description of Property in Authorization: Whether the authority to sell must contain a particular description of the property to be sold in order to be sufficient under subsection 5 of Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

• Sufficiency of Authority: Yes. The authority expressed in the letter was a sufficient compliance with both Article 1713 of the Civil Code, which requires an express mandate to alienate land, and Section 335(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the agent's authority to be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged.

• Description of Property in Authorization: No. There is no requirement in subsection 5 of Section 335 that the authorization contain a particular description of the property. The governing test is whether the act performed by the agent was within the scope of the authority conferred, and Nicolasa's sale of one parcel was plainly within that scope.

• Sufficiency of Authority: Article 1713 of the Civil Code requires that authority to alienate land be contained in an express mandate, while Section 335(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the agent's authority be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged. The letter of February 7, 1911, satisfied both requirements: it was an express mandate in writing, subscribed by Gregorio, authorizing Nicolasa to sell one of his parcels of land. Although a power of attorney to convey real property ought ideally to appear in a public document (Article 1280, Civil Code), it is established doctrine that a private document is competent to create, transmit, modify, or extinguish a right in real property. Nicolasa's conveyance in her own name, without disclosing the capacity in which she acted, was irregular, but the deed would nonetheless operate to bind Gregorio as a contract, and he could be compelled by proper judicial proceeding to execute a document carrying the contract into effect (Article 1279, Civil Code). The authority conferred was thus sufficient to bind the principal.

• Description of Property in Authorization: The purpose of a power of attorney is to substitute the mind and hand of the agent for those of the principal. If the character and extent of the power is sufficiently defined to leave no doubt as to the limits within which the agent is authorized to act, and the agent acts within those limits, the principal cannot question the validity of the act. It is not necessary that the particular act to be accomplished be predestinated by the language of the power; the question is always whether the act performed was within the scope of the authority conferred. In this case, Nicolasa was given power to sell either of the parcels belonging to Gregorio, and her sale of one parcel was within that scope. The requirement that a contract or conveyance contain a description of the property — to define the object of the contract — applies to the sufficiency of the contract or conveyance, not to the sufficiency of the authorization. The deed Nicolasa executed contained a proper description of the property conveyed. Ample authority supports the proposition that general descriptions in powers of attorney are sufficient, including powers to sell "all" land possessed by the principal, or "my farm" in a particular county where the principal owns only one, or "any or all tracts, lots, or parcels" of land belonging to the principal.

• Sufficiency of Power of Attorney Without Particular Property Description — A power of attorney need not contain a particular description of the property to be sold. The test is whether the act performed by the agent was within the scope of the authority conferred, not whether the specific act was predestinated by the language of the power. If the character and extent of the power is sufficiently defined to leave no doubt as to the limits within which the agent is authorized to act, and the agent acts within those limits, the principal cannot question the validity of the act. This doctrine distinguishes the sufficiency of the authorization from the sufficiency of the contract or conveyance, the latter requiring a description of the property to define the object of the contract.

• Private Document as Competent to Convey Real Property — Although a power of attorney to convey real property ought to appear in a public document (Article 1280, Civil Code), a private document is competent to create, transmit, modify, or extinguish a right in real property, and a power of attorney in the form of a private document will operate with effect.

• "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." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the sufficiency of authority without a particular property description, establishing the governing test for agency authority.

• "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?" — This defines the analytical framework for determining whether an agent's act binds the principal, distinguishing the scope of authority from the specificity of the authorization.

• Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec, 2 Phil. Rep. 561 — Cited as controlling authority for the doctrine that a private document is competent to create, transmit, modify, or extinguish a right in real property, supporting the validity of a power of attorney in private form.
• Couto Soriano vs. Cortes, 8 Phil. Rep. 459 — Followed for the same doctrine as Thunga Chui, reinforcing that private documents may operate upon rights in real property.
• Linan vs. Puno, 31 Phil. Rep. 259 — Authority to administer "the interests" possessed by the principal in a municipality, including power to purchase, sell, collect, and pay, was held a sufficient power of attorney. The Court relied on this as Philippine precedent supporting the sufficiency of general descriptions in powers of attorney.
• Lyon vs. Pollock, 99 U.S. 668 — Authority to sell everything the owner had in San Antonio, Texas, was held sufficient. Also cited for the proposition that a deed conveying property in the agent's own name, without showing the capacity in which she acted, would operate to bind the principal as a contract.

• Article 1280, Civil Code — Requires that a power of attorney to convey real property appear in a public document. The Court acknowledged this formality but held that a private document suffices as a matter of established doctrine.
• Article 1713, Civil Code — Requires that authority to alienate land be contained in an express mandate. The Court found the letter of February 7, 1911, to be a sufficient express mandate.
• Article 1279, Civil Code — Where an agent conveys property without disclosing the capacity in which she acted, the principal may be compelled by proper judicial proceeding to execute a document to carry the contract into effect.
• Section 335(5), Code of Civil Procedure — Requires that the authority of the agent be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged. The Court held the letter sufficient and rejected the argument that it must contain a particular description of the property to be sold.

Torres, Johnson, Malcolm, Avanceña, and Fisher, JJ., concur.