An agent requires a special power of attorney to alienate a principal's property, and the power must be specifically stated. Ong Guan Can owned a rice mill and camarin, but was in debt to Dy Buncio. His son, acting as his agent, purported to sell the properties to Juan Tong, but the sale was invalid because the son did not have the necessary power of attorney to alienate the properties. Therefore, the court properly awarded the properties to Dy Buncio in payment of Ong Guan Can's debt.
An agent requires a special power of attorney to alienate a principal's property, and the power must be specifically stated. Ong Guan Can owned a rice mill and camarin, but was in debt to Dy Buncio. His son, acting as his agent, purported to sell the properties to Juan Tong, but the sale was invalid because the son did not have the necessary power of attorney to alienate the properties. Therefore, the court properly awarded the properties to Dy Buncio in payment of Ong Guan Can's debt.
An agent requires a special power of attorney to alienate a principal's property, and the power must be specifically stated. Ong Guan Can owned a rice mill and camarin, but was in debt to Dy Buncio. His son, acting as his agent, purported to sell the properties to Juan Tong, but the sale was invalid because the son did not have the necessary power of attorney to alienate the properties. Therefore, the court properly awarded the properties to Dy Buncio in payment of Ong Guan Can's debt.
An agent requires a special power of attorney to alienate a principal's property, and the power must be specifically stated. Ong Guan Can owned a rice mill and camarin, but was in debt to Dy Buncio. His son, acting as his agent, purported to sell the properties to Juan Tong, but the sale was invalid because the son did not have the necessary power of attorney to alienate the properties. Therefore, the court properly awarded the properties to Dy Buncio in payment of Ong Guan Can's debt.
DOCTRINE: Alienating a property as a task of an agent requires a special power of attorney and must be specifically stated in the written SPA.
TITLE FACTS ISSUE(S) RULING(S)
G.R. No. L-40681 Context: 1934, Capiz Issue: Who owns the rice mill & The owner is Ong Guan Can, because the Deed of Sale between him as October 2, 1934 Cast: camarin – is it Ong Guan Can or principal and Juan Tong was invalid, bec his son Ong Guan Jr. did not Dy Buncio & Co. Inc., petitioner – Through a Juan Tong? have the power to sell this property under his Special Power of Attorney. court judgment, claims the rice mill and DY BUNCIO & COMPANY, camarin owned by Ong Guan Can as INC., plaintiff-appelle, payment for Can’s unpaid debt Juan Tong – claims that Can sold him the rice vs. mill & camarin through his agent, his son Ong Guan Can Jr. ONG GUAN CAN, ET AL., Pua Giok Eng – claims to be the lessee of defendants. the ricemill & camarin, with Tong as lessor JUAN TONG and PUA GIOK ENG, appellants. Ong Guan Can owes Dy Buncio. He is unable to pay. Dy Buncio is awarded by the TOPIC: court the ricemill & camarin belonging to his debtor Ong Guan Can as payment for his Obligations of a principal unpaid debt.
Juan Tong challenges the judgment, claiming
that the Court cannot award the ricemill & camarin to Dy Buncio bec it was actually sold to him by Ong Guan through his agent Ong Guan Can Jr.
Pua Giok Eng also challenges the court
judgment, saying that he is the lessee of the subject camarin & rice mill, with Juan Tong as his lessor. GER WORDS/ KEYWORD(S): special power of atty; deed of sale