GR L 12579; (July, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12579; July 27, 1918
GREGORIO JIMENEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO RABOT, NICOLASA JIMENEZ and her husband EMILIO RODRIGUEZ, defendants. PEDRO RABOT, appellant.
FACTS:
Gregorio Jimenez owned three parcels of land in Alaminos, Pangasinan. In 1911, while residing in Vigan, he entrusted the care of his properties to his elder sister, Nicolasa Jimenez. Needing money, Gregorio wrote Nicolasa a letter dated February 7, 1911, requesting her to sell “one of my parcels of land” and send him the proceeds to pay his debts. Acting on this letter, Nicolasa agreed to sell a specific parcel to Pedro Rabot for P500, receiving an initial payment of P250. She did not remit any money to Gregorio. About a year later, Gregorio demanded the return of the land from Nicolasa, who refused. Gregorio and other siblings then sued Nicolasa to recover their properties, obtaining a favorable judgment on August 12, 1913. Meanwhile, on May 31, 1912, during the pendency of that litigation, Nicolasa executed a deed conveying the subject land to Pedro Rabot, who took possession. Gregorio subsequently filed this action to recover the land from Rabot.
ISSUE:
Whether the authority conferred by Gregorio Jimenez upon his sister Nicolasa Jimenez in his private letter, authorizing her to sell “one of my parcels of land,” was sufficient to validly bind him to the sale of the specific parcel to Pedro Rabot.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and absolved defendant Pedro Rabot from the complaint.
The Court held that the authority granted in the private letter was a sufficient express mandate under Article 1713 of the Civil Code and a writing subscribed by the party to be charged under Section 335(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The requirement for a power of attorney to sell real property is not that it must particularly describe the property to be sold, but that the act performed by the agent must be within the scope of the granted authority. Here, the authority to sell “one of my parcels of land” was general but definite in its scopeit permitted the sale of any one of Gregorio’s parcels. Nicolasa’s act of selling one specific parcel was clearly within that authority. The Court distinguished the sufficiency of the authorization from the sufficiency of the contract or conveyance itself, noting that the deed executed by Nicolasa contained an adequate description of the property. The principal is bound by the agent’s act performed within the limits of the granted power. Therefore, the sale to Rabot was valid and bound Gregorio Jimenez.