Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aimee
Tan
Dy
Buncio
&
Co
v
Ong
Guan
Can
(1934)
Hull
Under
what
topic:
How
is
Agency
Extinguished
-‐
Revocation
Synopsis:
Ong
Guan
Can,
Jr.,
(Ong
Jr)
as
agent
of
Ong
Guan
Can
(Ong)
sold
a
rice-‐mill
and
camarin
under
the
authority
of
a
power
of
attorney
dated
May
23,
1928.
When
judgment
creditor
Buncio
and
Company
claimed
that
the
rice
mill
and
camarin
belonged
to
debtor
Ong,
and
thus
were
subject
to
attachment
and
execution,
Juan
Tong
and
Pua
Giok
Eng
claimed
to
be
the
owner
and
lessee
respectively,
by
virtue
of
another
deed
executed
by
Ong
Jr,
dated
July
31,
1931.
CFI
held
that
the
July
31
deed
was
invalid.
The
SC
however,
did
not
rule
on
the
issue
of
the
validity
of
the
said
deed.
It
found
that
the
first
power
of
attorney
was
limited
and
did
not
give
authority
to
alienate
properties.
The
second
power
of
attorney,
meanwhile,
did
not
revoke
the
first
to
terminate
the
agency
created
in
the
first
deed.
Doctrine:
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.
Facts:
power
of
attorney
but
a
limited
one
and
does
not
give
the
Ong
Guan
Can,
Jr.,
(Ong
Jr)
as
agent
of
Ong
Guan
Can
(Ong)
express
power
to
alienate
the
properties
in
question.
who
is
the
proprietor
of
the
commercial
firm
of
Ong
Guan
(Article
1713
of
the
Civil
Code.)
Can
&
Sons,
sold
a
rice-‐mill
and
camarin
situated
in
Capiz
for
P13,000,
under
the
authority
of
a
power
of
attorney
Tong
and
Pua
claim
that
this
defect
is
cured
by
a
general
dated
May
23,
1928.
A
copy
of
this
public
instrument
was
power
of
attorney
executed
on
July
31
given
to
the
same
attached
and
recorded
with
the
deed
in
the
office
of
the
agent.
The
Court
disagreed.
Making
and
accepting
of
a
register
of
deeds
of
Capiz.
The
deed
was
signed
by
the
agent
new
power
of
attorney,
whether
it
enlarges
or
in
his
own
name
and
without
any
words
indicating
that
he
decreases
the
power
of
the
agent
under
a
prior
power
was
signing
for
the
principal.
The
receipt
of
the
money
also
of
attorney,
must
be
held
to
supplant
and
revoke
the
acknowledged
in
the
deed
was
to
the
agent.
latter
when
the
two
are
inconsistent.
If
the
new
appointment
with
limited
powers
does
not
revoke
the
While
Dy
Buncio
and
Company,
a
judgment
creditor
of
Ong,
general
power
of
attorney,
the
execution
of
the
second
claims
that
the
rice
mill
and
camarin
belongs
to
debtor
Ong,
power
of
attorney
would
be
a
mere
futile
gesture,
defendants
Juan
Tong
and
Pua
Giok
Eng
claim
to
be
the
owner
and
lessee
respectively,
by
virtue
of
another
deed
The
title
of
Ong
not
having
been
divested
by
the
so-‐called
executed
by
Ong
Jr.
This
deed
dated
July
31,
1931.
deed
of
July
31,
1931,
his
properties
are
subject
to
attachment
and
execution.
The
CFI
of
Capiz
held
that
the
July
31
deed
was
invalid.
Thus
the
property
was
subject
to
the
execution
which
has
been
Dispositive:
levied
on
said
properties
by
Dy
Buncio
and
Company.
Tong
and
Pua
brought
this
appeal
before
the
SC,
insisting
that
the
The
judgment
appealed
from
is
therefore
affirmed.
Costs
July
31
deed
by
Ong
Jr
was
valid.
against
appellants.
So
ordered.
Issue:
Digester's
Notes:
The
ponencia
is
very
short,
badly
written
and
lacking
in
WON
the
July
31
power
of
attorney
give
Ong
Jr
the
authority
facts.
It
did
not
mention
the
contents
of
both
powers
of
to
sell
the
rice
mill
and
camarin?
NO
attorney
to
prove
absence
of
inconsistency
in
the
deeds.
Ratio:
Leaving
aside
the
irregularities
of
the
deed
and
examining
the
power
of
attorney
dated
May
23,
referred
to
in
the
deed
and
registered
therewith,
the
Court
said
it
is
NOT
a
general