GR 40681; (October, 1934) (CRITIQUE)
__________________________________________________________________
THE AI-ASSISTED CRITIQUE
The Court correctly applied Article 1713 of the Civil Code, which requires express authority for an agent to alienate property, to invalidate the sale. The 1928 power of attorney was properly deemed a limited one that did not grant Ong Guan Can, Jr. the specific power to sell the rice mill and camarin. The deed’s irregularities, such as the agent signing in his own name and acknowledging receipt of payment personally, further underscored the lack of proper agency, making the transaction void as against the principal. This strict construction prevents agents from exceeding their granted authority, protecting the principal’s property rights from unauthorized disposition.

In addressing the appellants’ claim that an earlier 1920 general power of attorney cured the defect, the Court’s reasoning that the later, limited 1928 power supplanted and revoked the prior general authority is sound. The principle that a subsequent, inconsistent agency instrument revokes the prior one is essential to give legal effect to the principal’s most recent expressed will. To hold otherwise would render the execution of a new, restrictive power of attorney a futile gesture, creating uncertainty and potentially allowing agents to rely on outdated, broader powers contrary to the principal’s current intent.

The outcome safeguards the rights of the judgment creditor, Dy Buncio & Company, by ensuring that property legally owned by the judgment debtor, Ong Guan Can, remained subject to execution. The ruling reinforces the doctrine of apparent authority does not apply where the registered deed itself incorporates the limited power of attorney, putting all parties on constructive notice of the agent’s lack of capacity to sell. This promotes certainty in property transactions and registry records, ensuring creditors can rely on the legal title of debtors when pursuing lawful remedies.