When Agency Agency Cannot Be Revoked Revoked EULOGIO DEL ROSARIO, AURELIO DEL ROSARIO, BENITO DEL ROSARIO, BERNARDO DEL ROSARIO, ISIDRA DEL ROSARIO, DOMINGA DEL ROSARIO and CONCEPCION BORROMEO, plaintiff-ap BORROMEO, plaintiff-appellees, pellees, vs. PRIMITIVO ABAD and TEODORICO ABAD, defendants-appellants. J. Padilla; September 30, 1958 Short Version: Del Rosario mortgaged his homestead grant to Abad and executed an “irrevocable special power of attorney coupled with interest” interest ” in Abad’s favor. Mortgagor del Rosario died, leaving the debt unpaid. Abad, acting as attorney-in-fact of del Rosario, sold the land to his son for P1 with the condition that his son will pay the unpaid debt. The Court held that this sale is invalid. Abad did not have an “irrevocable special special power of attorney coupled with interest.” A mere statement in the power of attorney that it is coupled with an interest is not enough. It must be stated in the power of attorney all the interests it consists. The fact that the principal,had mortgaged the improvements of the parcel of land to the agent is not such an interest as could render irrevocable the power of attorney executed by the principal in favor of the agent. As the agency was not coupled with an interest, it was terminated upon the death of the principal, and the agent, could co uld no longer validly convey the parcel of land. The sale therefore was null and and void. Facts:
The plaintiffs del Rosario are the children and heirs of Tiburcio del Rosario, who was issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, by authority of the President, a homestead patent under the Public Land Act. o Homestead: 9 hectares, 43 ares, 14 centares in Bo. San Mauricio, municipality of San Jose, province of Nueva Ecija The Registrar of Deeds issued an original certificate of title in the name of the homesteader Tiburcio del Rosario. He obtained a loan from Primitivo Abad in the sum of P2,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. o As security for the payment thereof, he mortgaged the improvements improvements of the parcel of land. o On the same day, he executed an "irrevocable special power of attorney coupled with interest" in favor of the mortgagee, authorizing him, among others, to sell and convey the parcel of land. The mortgagor del Rosario died leaving the mortgage debt unpaid. Primitivo Abad, acting as attorney-in-fact of Tiburcio del Rosario, sold the parcel of land to his son Teodorico Abad for and in consideration of the token sum of P1 and the payment by the vendee of the mortgage debt of Tiburcio del Rosario to Primitivo Abad. The vendee took possession of the parcel of land. The Registrar of Deeds cancelled original certificate of title in the name of Tiburcio del Rosario and in lieu thereof issued transfer certificate of title in favor of the vendee Teodorico Abad. The plaintiffs (del Rosario heirs) brought suit against the defendants to recover possession and ownership of the parcel of land. The defendants answered the complaint and prayed for its dismissal. CFI rendered judgment against Abad, ruling that the deed of sale executed by Primitivo Abad in favor of Teodorico Abad was null and void; and Teodorico Abad is hereby ordered to execute a deed of reconveyance of the land.
Thus this appeal by the Abads.
Issue: Whether or not the irrevocable power of attorney was valid. NO, it was not valid. Thus, the subsequent sale was also invalid.
There is no question that the mortgage on the improvements of the parcel of land executed by Tiburcio del Rosario in favor of Primitivo Abad is valid. The power of attorney executed by Tiburcio del Rosario in favor of Primitivo Abad is not valid. o It provides that is “coupled with an interest in the subject matter thereof in favor of the said attorney and are therefore irrevocable, and . . . conferring upon my said attorney full and ample power and authority to do and perform all things reasonably necessary and proper for the due carrying out of the said powers according to the true tenor and purport of the same, . . ." o This does not create an agency coupled with an interest nor does it clothe the agency with an irrevocable character. o A mere statement in the power of attorney that it is coupled with an interest is not enough. o It must be stated in the power of attorney all the interests it consists. o The fact that the principal had mortgaged the improvements of the parcel of land to the agent, is not such an interest as could render irrevocable the power of attorney executed by the principal in favor of the agent. No mention of it is made in the power of attorney. The mortgage on the improvements of the parcel of land has nothing to do with the power of attorney and may be foreclosed by the mortgagee upon failure of the mortgagor to comply with his obligation. o As the agency was not coupled with an interest, it was terminated upon the death of the principal, and the agent, could no longer validly convey the parcel of land to Teodorico Abad. o The sale, therefore, was null and void. But granting that the irrevocable power of attorney was lawful and valid it would subject the parcel of land to an encumbrance. o As the homestead patent was issued on 12 December 1936 and the power of attorney was executed on 24 February 1937, it was in violation of the law (Section 16 of the Public Land Act— Act No. 2874) that prohibits the alienation or encumbrance of land acquired by homestead from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the issuance of the patent or grant. As the sale to Teodorico Abad is null and void, the appellees cannot be compelled to reimburse Teodorico Abad for what he had paid to Primitivo Abad. o Teodorico’s right of action is against his father, without prejudice to the right of Primitivo to foreclose the mortgage on the improvements of the parcel of land if the mortgage debt is not paid by the appellees, as heirs and successors-in-interest of the mortgagor.
Dispositive: Appeal denied. CFI affirmed. -Bettina R.
