GR L 48024; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-48024; April 25, 1941
PAGSANJAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION, INC., plaintiff and appellant, vs. SOR JOSEFA SORIANO, defendant and appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Pagsanjan Agricultural Association, Inc., claims payment from the defendant, Sor Josefa Soriano, of the sum of P2,168.26 with 8% interest from January 13, 1934, plus 10% of the sum as attorney’s fees. The claim is based on a special power of attorney (Exhibit B) executed by the defendant on September 22, 1933, in favor of her brother, Manuel Soriano, authorizing him to encumber or mortgage, on her behalf, her one-half pro-indiviso share of a parcel of land described in the complaint. On January 13, 1934, Manuel Soriano, in consideration of the sum of P2,168.26 paid to him by the plaintiff, sold with a pacto de retro said one-half share of the land to the plaintiff. Neither Manuel Soriano nor the defendant exercised the right of repurchase within the stipulated period. The plaintiff initially filed a complaint against the defendant seeking possession of the land and adjudication of P160 as rental, but this was dismissed on the ground that the special power of attorney only authorized encumbrance or mortgage, not sale. No appeal was taken from that dismissal. On March 21, 1938, the plaintiff filed the present action to recover the aforementioned sum, alleging it is a debt of the defendant. The defendant, in her answer, maintains that the special power of attorney granted to her brother was only to encumber or mortgage the property and that her brother, exceeding his authority, sold it with pacto de retro to the plaintiff. The trial court ruled that the transaction between Manuel Soriano and the plaintiff was not a simple loan, as alleged by the plaintiff, but a sale with pacto de retro.
ISSUE
Does the plaintiff-appellant have the right to claim payment of the sum of P2,168.26 from the defendant-appellee, based on the transaction entered into by Manuel Soriano?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment in all its parts. The transaction between Manuel Soriano and the plaintiff was declared to be a sale with a pacto de retro. Since the special power of attorney (Exhibit B) only authorized Manuel Soriano to encumber or mortgage the property and did not authorize a sale, his acts in executing the pacto de retro sale were in contravention of the authority granted. Consequently, the defendant cannot be held responsible for the acts of her brother performed beyond the scope of his power. The action should have been directed against Manuel Soriano and not against the defendant. Costs were adjudged against the appellant.