Ramos vs. Caoibes

A power of attorney is terminated by the death of the principal, and any collection made by the agent after such death inures to the estate of the deceased principal. Additionally, a donation of personal property made in writing but not accepted in writing is invalid and produces no effect, and cannot be considered a donation upon valuable consideration absent proof of services or consideration passing from the donee to the donor.

Consolacion L. Ramos was the administratrix of the estate of Concepcion Ramos Dipusoy, who died on August 19, 1948. Concepcion had filed a claim with the Philippine War Damage Commission for properties lost during the war. Benigno A. Caoibes was Concepcion's nephew and attorney-in-fact under a special power of attorney executed on August 16, 1948. The estate was administered under intestate proceedings before the Court of First Instance of Batangas, and Concepcion's will, dated January 7, 1927, had been admitted to probate on October 4, 1948, ordering that credits due to her be distributed among the children of the deceased Antonino Ramos.

On August 16, 1948, Concepcion Ramos Dipusoy executed before a notary public two documents: Annex "A," a special power of attorney appointing Benigno A. Caoibes as her attorney-in-fact to collect any amount due her from the Philippine War Damage Commission, to cash checks and warrants, and to sign receipts and documents necessary for that purpose; and Annex "B," an affidavit stating that in case of payment from the Commission, Caoibes should give one-half to her sister Teopista Vda. de Basa and the other half to Mr. and Mrs. Benigno A. Caoibes. Both documents were witnessed by Consolacion L. Ramos and Socorro L. Ramos.

Concepcion Ramos died on August 19, 1948, leaving a will dated January 7, 1927, admitted to probate on October 4, 1948, in which she ordered that credits due to her be distributed among the children of the deceased Antonino Ramos, namely, Consolacion, Ramon, Socorro, and Cirila. One year before her death, Concepcion had filed with the War Damage Commission a claim identified as No. 411773. On August 31, 1948, the Commission issued check No. 348444 in the amount of P501.62, payable to the deceased Concepcion Ramos. This check was returned to the Commission and substituted by check No. 564614 on November 10, 1948, for the same amount, but payable to Benigno A. Caoibes, who had presented Annexes "A" and "B" to the Commission in order to exchange the first check, which he cashed for himself.

Annexes "A" and "B" were presented to the Commission by Caoibes after the death of Concepcion. The administratrix, Consolacion L. Ramos, discovered the collection made by Caoibes when she saw the note "previous payment" in the account sent to her by the Commission on October 13, 1950. She filed a motion with the court asking that Caoibes be ordered to deposit the sum of P501.62 with the clerk of court. Caoibes answered the motion, admitting that after the death of Concepcion he presented Annexes "A" and "B" to the Commission and received in cash the sum of P501.62, but stating that he was willing to deliver to the clerk the sum of P250.81, contending that by virtue of Annexes "A" and "B" he had the right to retain for himself half of the sum.

The court below issued an order stating that Caoibes was agreeable to turn over P250.81 to the Clerk of Court in final settlement, and ordered him to deposit that amount to be at the disposal of the administratrix and the other parties in the intestate proceedings, deeming the matter closed. The administratrix filed a motion for reconsideration on July 3, 1951, which was denied on July 12, 1951.

• Invalidity of the Power of Attorney: The administratrix argued that Caoibes had no right to collect the amount after the death of Concepcion, as the agency was terminated by her death.
• Invalidity of the Donation: The administratrix contended that the alleged donation in Annex "B" was invalid for lack of acceptance in writing, and that no services or valuable consideration had passed from the donees to the donor.
• Full Recovery: The administratrix maintained that Caoibes should be ordered to deposit the full sum of P501.62, not merely half, and that she never consented to the reduction of the claim.

• Right to Retain Half: Caoibes contended that by virtue of Annex "A" and Annex "B," he had the right to retain for himself half of the sum of P501.62.
• Willingness to Deliver Partial Amount: Caoibes admitted presenting the documents after Concepcion's death and receiving the full amount, but stated he was willing to deliver only P250.81 to the clerk of court.

• Termination of Agency: Whether the power of attorney (Annex "A") remained effective after the death of the principal, Concepcion Ramos Dipusoy.
• Validity of the Donation: Whether Annex "B" constituted a valid donation of personal property in favor of Caoibes.
• Consideration for the Donation: Whether the alleged donation could be considered a donation upon valuable consideration based on Caoibes' collection of the claim.

• Termination of Agency: No. The agency was terminated by the death of the principal under Article 1732 of the old Civil Code, and Caoibes had no authority to collect after Concepcion's death.
• Validity of the Donation: No. The alleged donation of personal property was made in writing but not accepted in writing, and therefore produced no effect under Article 632 of the old Civil Code.
• Consideration for the Donation: No. The donation could not be considered one upon valuable consideration because no services nor any valuable consideration had passed from the donees to the donor, and Caoibes did not even prepare the claim.

• Termination of Agency: Annex "A" was only a power of attorney. Caoibes, as agent, had the obligation to deliver the amount collected by virtue of said power to his principal, Concepcion, or, after her death, to the administratrix of her estate, Consolacion. There was absolutely no cession of rights made in favor of Caoibes in Annex "A." Under Article 1711 of the old Civil Code, the contract of agency is presumed to be gratuitous unless the agent is a professional agent, and there was no proof that Caoibes was such. Furthermore, under Article 1732 of said Code, an agency is terminated, among other causes, by the death of the principal or of the agent. When Caoibes made use of the power of attorney, his principal, Concepcion, was already dead.

• Validity of the Donation: Annex "B" was not a donation of real but of personal property, governed by Article 632 of the old Civil Code, which provides that donations of personal property may be made verbally or in writing, and that verbal donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the gift; in the absence of this requisite, the donation shall produce no effect unless made in writing and accepted in the same form. The alleged donation was made in writing but was not accepted in the same form, and consequently had no validity.

• Consideration for the Donation: The alleged donation could not be considered a donation upon valuable consideration, for no services nor any valuable consideration had passed from the donees to the donor. The mere fact that Caoibes collected the claim from the War Damage Commission was not such a service as to require compensation, and Caoibes did not even prepare the claim.

• Termination of Agency by Death of Principal — Under Article 1732 of the old Civil Code, an agency is terminated by the death of the principal or of the agent. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Caoibes' collection of the war damage claim after Concepcion's death was without authority, and the amount collected must be delivered to the administratrix of the estate.

• Formal Requisites of Donation of Personal Property — Under Article 632 of the old Civil Code, donations of personal property may be made verbally or in writing; a verbal donation requires simultaneous delivery, and a written donation must be accepted in writing. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Annex "B," though made in writing, was not accepted in writing and therefore produced no effect.

• Presumption of Gratuitous Agency — Under Article 1711 of the old Civil Code, the contract of agency is presumed to be gratuitous unless the agent is a professional agent. The Court applied this doctrine to reject any claim of compensation for Caoibes' collection efforts, noting there was no proof he was a professional agent and that he did not even prepare the claim.

• "Annex A is only a power of attorney. Caoibes, as agent, had the obligation to deliver the amount collected by virtue of said power to his principal, Concepcion, or, after her death, to the administratrix of her estate, Consolacion. There is absolutely no cession of rights made in favor of Caoibes in Annex 'A'." — This passage establishes the ratio decidendi on the agency issue: the power of attorney conferred no ownership rights, only the duty to collect and deliver.

• "Furthermore, according to Article 1732 of said Code, an agency is terminated, among other causes, by the death of the principal or of the agent. When Caoibes made use of the power of attorney, his principal, Concepcion was already dead." — This passage states the controlling rule on termination of agency by death and its application to the facts.

• "The alleged donation was made in writing but it has not been accepted in the same form, and consequently, has no validity. It cannot be considered a donation upon valuable consideration, for no services nor any valuable consideration had passed from the donees to the donor." — This passage articulates the Court's reasoning on the invalidity of the donation for lack of written acceptance and absence of consideration.

N/A — The decision does not cite any prior case law.

• Article 1711, Old Civil Code — Provides that the contract of agency is presumed to be gratuitous unless the agent is a professional agent. Applied to reject any claim of compensation for Caoibes' collection efforts.
• Article 1732, Old Civil Code — Provides that an agency is terminated by the death of the principal or of the agent. Applied to hold that Caoibes' collection after Concepcion's death was without authority.
• Article 632, Old Civil Code — Governs donations of personal property, requiring that a written donation be accepted in writing. Applied to hold that Annex "B" was invalid for lack of written acceptance.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Diokno, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the decision.