Case Digest for G.R. No. 179267. Constitutional LawFull description
case digestFull description
Garcia v Drilon DigestFull description
digest
ggFull description
Garcia-Recio vs. Recio case digest
reviewers's copyright to the authors.
crim proFull description
digestFull description
SOLIS V. BARROSO (53 PHIL 912)Full description
1Full description
cjkwjkjkcwkjcbwcb
People's Bank v SyvelFull description
Full reproduction of Harley 3469 of British Library
Descrição: Full reproduction of Harley 3469 of British Library
4D 2015 Legal Medicine Solis summaryFull description
Alquimia.Descripción completa
JUAN GARCIA Y PALICIO vs. JOSEFA DE MANZANO, as administratrix ! t"# #stat# ! "#r "$s%and Nar&is L'#( Man(an F#%r$ar- , ** 0OPIC IN S YLLA1US/ Md# ! Extin2$is"m#nt 3 R#v&atin ) Im'4i#d
G.R. N. L)*+*
MOIR, J./
5O6 05E CASE REAC5ED 05E SC/ CFI Tayabas in favor of Garcia -> SC petition for review FAC0S/ Narciso Lopez Manzano gave a general power-of-attorney power-of-attorney to his son !ngel !ngel L" Manzano Manzano on the #th of Febr$ary %#%& an' on the ()th of March a secon' general power-of-attorney to his wife *osefa Sa+son" Manzano was the owner of a half interest in a s+all stea+er the San Nicolas the other half being owne' by ,ceo .erez / Co" with who+ there was a partnership agree+ent to r$n the stea+er for a few years" 0hen this perio' e1pire' ,ceo .erez / Co 'e+an'e' that Manzano b$y or sell" !s he 'i' not want to sell at the price offere' an' co$l' not b$y *$an Garcia bo$ght the half interest hel' by ,ceo .erez / Co" !ngel L" Manzano Manzano acting $n'er his power-of-attorney power-of-attorney sol' in *$ly *$ly %#%% %#%% the other half of the boat to the plaintiff b$t as Garcia is a Spaniar' an' co$l' not register the boat in his na+e at the C$sto+ 2o$se the boat was registere' in the na+e of !g$stin Garcia a son of the plaintiff who at that ti+e *$ly (' %#%3 was a +inor abo$t twenty years ol'" !g$stin Garcia shortly shortly thereafter 'ie' 'ie' leaving his parents as his heirs at law an' as s$ch heirs plaintiff4s wife was +a'e a party" !ngel L" Manzano Manzano by virt$e of the power-of-attorney power-of-attorney fro+ his father father Narciso L" Manzano Manzano e1ec$te' a contract by which *$an Garcia agree' to e1ten' a cre'it to Narciso L" Manzano in the s$+ of .%(&&& an' this cre'it was $se' by the ho$se of Manzano" To sec$re it a +ortgage was given in the sa+e 'oc$+ent on three parcels of lan' in !ti+onan with their i+prove+ents" The registration of this +ortgage was ref$se' by the registrar" *osefa Sa+son y San .e'ro was na+e' a'+inistratri1 of the property of Narciso L" Manzano an' co++issioners were '$ly appointe' appointe' an' notice was p$blishe' an' no clai+s having been presente' against the estate to the co++issioners they so reporte' to the co$rt on the 5th of 6ece+ber %#%7" Co$rt of First Instance or'ere' the partition of the property a+ongst the heirs of Narciso L" Manzano" .laintiff file' his action to foreclose the so-calle' +ortgage"
S,LIS 8!F!9L !L9*!N68, L"
CASE 7 *89
PE0I0IONER:S ARGUMEN0/ !ngel Manzano ha' no a$thority in selling the stea+er RESPONDEN0:S ARGUMEN0/ Garcia ta:ing a'vantage of the yo$th an' ine1perience of !ngel L" Manzano falsely an' +alicio$sly +a'e hi+ believe that he ha' a$thority $n'er the power-of-attorney fro+ his father to sell the half interest in the San Nicolas an' that he 'i' so !ngel L" Manzano ha' no a$thority to sell the interest in the stea+er b$t that since the 'ate of sai' sale *$ly %#%( the plaintiff ha' illegally appropriate' all rents an' profits of the boat to his own $se which a+o$nt to .3&&&& per year after paying for all repairs etc" The power-of-attorney $n'er which !ngel L" Manzano acte' even if a vali' power 'i' not a$thorize the sale of the boat an' they want it bac: it with one-half of the profits 'erive' fro+ its $se by the plaintiff"
ISSUES/ Iss$e %; 0,N the power-of-attorney to the wife revo:e' the one to the son in accor'ance with article %53) of the Civil co'e Iss$e (; 0,N the sale of the boat by !ngel L" Manzano was a$thorize' 5ELD/ Iss$e %; There is no proof in the recor' that the first agent the son :new of the power-ofattorney to his +other" It was necessary $n'er the law for the 'efen'ants in or'er to establish their co$nterclai+ to prove that the son ha' notice of the secon' power-of-attorney" They have not 'one so an' it +$st be consi'ere' that !ngel L" Manzano was acting $n'er a vali' powerof-attorney fro+ his father which ha' not been legally revo:e' on the 'ate of the sale of the half interest in the stea+er to the plaintiff4s son which half interest was legally inherite' by the plaintiffs" !rticle %53) of the Civil Co'e <,l' Civil Co'e or ,CC=; The appoint+ent of a new agent for the sa+e b$siness pro'$ces a revocation of the previo$s agency fro+ the 'ay on which notice was given to the for+er agent e1cepting the provisions of the ne1t prece'ing article" !rticle %(&) <,CC= Novation which consists in the s$bstit$tion of a new 'ebtor in the place of the original one +ay be +a'e witho$t the :nowle'ge of the later b$t not witho$t the consent of the cre'itor" Iss$e (; The a$thorization is so co+plete that it carries with it f$ll a$thority to sell the one-half interest in the boat which was then owne' by Narciso L" Manzano" The power 'oes not e1pressly state that the agent +ay sell the boat b$t a power so f$ll an' co+plete a$thoring the sale of real property +$st necessarily carry with it the right to sell a half interest in a s+all boat" The recor' f$rther shows the sale was necessary in or'er to get +oney S,LIS 8!F!9L !L9*!N68, L"
CASE 7 *89
or a cre'it witho$t which it wo$l' be i+possible to contin$e the b$siness which was being con'$cte' in the na+e of Narciso L" Manzano an' for his benefit" 6ispositive; That part of the $'ge+ent or'ering the 'efen'ant *osefa Sa+son 'e Manzano to pay the plaintiff .%(5)(") is revo:e' an' the $'g+ent in so far as it 'is+isses the co$nterclai+ of the 'efen'ants is affir+e' witho$t any 'eclaration of costs" So or'ere'" T,889S *" 'issenting; !ltho$gh on the 'eath of the h$sban' the property of the con$gal partnership was in a +ass an' pro in'iviso after the li?$i'ation an' partition of this property ha' been +a'e the wi'ow a +e+ber of the 'issolve' partnership receive' her share of the co++$nity property an' it wo$l' not be $st that for the collection of one-half of the 'ebt for which she is liable the cre'itor sho$l' be force to s$bect hi+self to an' observe the procee'ings prescribe' for the collection of the a+o$nt owing hi+ fro+ the testate or intestate estate of the 'ecease' 'ebtor"
