G.R. No. L-9608; August 7, 1915
DIEGO LIÑAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCOS P. PUNO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Diego Liñan was the owner of a parcel of land in Tarlac. On May 16, 1908, he executed a power of attorney (Exhibit A) in favor of defendant Marcos P. Puno. The document conferred upon Puno the power “in my name and representation he may administer the interest I possess within this municipality of Tarlac, purchase, sell, collect and pay, as well as sue and be sued before any authority … in any proceeding or business concerning the good administration and advancement of my said interests.” In June 1911, Puno sold the said parcel of land to the other defendants (the Maglanoks) for P800. Liñan filed an action to annul the sale, contending that the power of attorney did not authorize Puno to sell the land. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Liñan, declaring the sale null and void, ordering the return of the land, and awarding damages.

ISSUE:
Whether the power of attorney (Exhibit A) executed by Liñan in favor of Puno expressly granted the authority to sell the plaintiff’s real property.

RULING:
YES. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court.
The Court held that the power of attorney must be interpreted according to the language used by the parties, gathering the intention from the whole instrument. The document expressly authorized Puno to “administer … purchase, sell, collect and pay … in any proceeding or business concerning the good administration and advancement of my said interests.” The words “administer,” “purchase,” and “sell” were used coordinately, each having equal force. There was no reason to limit the authority to “administer” only and exclude the expressly granted power “to sell.” The sale was deemed an act advantageous to the principal within the scope of advancing his interests. The Court presumed Puno and the buyers acted in good faith, noting the plaintiff’s delay in challenging the sale and his failure to return or offer to return the purchase price. Consequently, the sale was declared valid, and the defendants were relieved from all liability under the complaint.