G.R. No. L-5142 February 26, 1954
CONSOLACION L. RAMOS, administratrix-appellant, vs. BENIGNO A. CAOIBES, attorney-in-fact-appellee.

FACTS

On August 16, 1948, Concepcion Ramos Dipusoy executed two documents before a notary public: Annex “A”, a Special Power of Attorney appointing Benigno A. Caoibes as her attorney-in-fact to collect any amount due from the Philippine War Damage Commission for her war damage claim; and Annex “B”, an affidavit stating that in case of payment from the Commission, her sister Teopista Vda. de Basa would receive one-half, and her nephew and niece Mr. and Mrs. Benigno A. Caoibes would receive the other half. Concepcion Ramos died on August 19, 1948. Her will, dated January 7, 1927, ordered that her credits be distributed among the children of Antonino Ramos. After her death, Caoibes presented Annexes “A” and “B” to the War Damage Commission. The Commission, which had issued a check payable to Concepcion Ramos, substituted it with a new check payable to Benigno A. Caoibes for P501.62, which he cashed. The administratrix of Concepcion’s estate, Consolacion L. Ramos, discovered this payment and filed a motion in court to order Caoibes to deposit the full amount with the clerk of court. Caoibes admitted collecting the money but contended he had the right to retain half (P250.81) by virtue of Annex “B”. The lower court ordered Caoibes to deposit only P250.81, which he agreed to, and deemed the matter closed. The administratrix moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether Benigno A. Caoibes is obligated to deposit the full amount of P501.62 collected from the War Damage Commission with the clerk of court for the estate of Concepcion Ramos, or only half, based on the validity and effect of Annex “A” (Power of Attorney) and Annex “B” (Affidavit).

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court. Annex “A” is merely a power of attorney. As agent, Caoibes had the obligation to deliver the collected amount to his principal, Concepcion, or after her death, to her administratrix. The contract of agency is presumed gratuitous under the old Civil Code, and the agency was terminated by the death of the principal. Annex “B” is an alleged donation of personal property. Under Article 632 of the old Civil Code, a donation of personal property made in writing requires acceptance in the same form to be valid. Annex “B” was not accepted in writing and therefore produced no effect. It could not be considered a donation upon valuable consideration, as no services or valuable consideration passed from the donees to the donor. The mere act of collecting the claim did not constitute such a service. The lower court’s order, based on Caoibes’s agreement to deposit only half, was erroneous as the administratrix never consented to the reduction. Benigno A. Caoibes is ordered to deposit the full sum of P501.62 with the Clerk of Court of Batangas for the disposal of the administratrix.