26 Jimenez v Rabot

26 / Jimenez v Rabot, 38 Phil 378 (1918) Part II / Essential Elements of a Contract of Agency; Form  Nature of the Action: Appeal from judgment of the CFI of Pangasinan Street, J. Facts: 1.

This action was was instituted by Gregorio Jimenez to recover from the defendant, Pedro Pedro Rabot, a parcel of land. the parcel of land together with two other parcels originally belonged to plaintiff Jimenez. While Gregorio was staying at Vigan in 1911, the subject property was confided by him to the care of his elder sister Nicolasa Jimenez.

2.

On February 7, 1911, he wrote his sister a letter from from Vigan informing informing her that he was was pressed for money money and requested her to sell one of his parcels of land. This letter contains no description as to which land is to be sold other  than the indicated words “one of my parcels of land”. Acting upon this letter, Nicolasa approached defendant Rabot and the latter agreed to buy the parcel.

3.

A year later, later, Jimenez demanded that his sister return the subject subject parcel to him. Nicolasa Nicolasa refused. refused. Gregorio, together  together  with his other siblings, then filed action for the recovery of their land. The action was decided in favor of the plaintiffs.

4.

Meanwhile, Nicolasa Nicolasa executed executed and delivered delivered to defendant Rabot Rabot a deed purporting purporting to convey convey to him the subject subject parcel of land. Defendant went into possession and the property was found in his hands at the time when the final  judgment was entered entered in favor of plaintiffs. plaintiffs.

red on Nicolasa by Gregorio’s letter sufficient to enable her to bind her brother  Issue: Whether the authority confer red

Ruling: YES. The principle embodied xxx is not, in our opinion, applicable to the present case, which relates to the sufficiency of the authorization, not to the sufficiency of the contract or conveyance. There is ample authority to the effect that a person may by a general power of attorney authorize an agent to sell “all” the land possessed by the principal, or all that he possesses in a pa rticular city, county or state. In present case, the agent was given the power to sell either of the parcels of land belonging to the plaintiff. We can see no reason why the performance of an act within the scope of this authority should not bind the plaintiff to the same extent as if he had given the agent authority to sell “any or all” and she had conveyed only one. Judgment reversed.