Art.

1923

SONZA, Richelle May S.

GR No. L-13414 Garcia vs De Manzano FACTS:

Narciso Manzano, a merchant executed a general power-o -attorney to his son, Angel !. Manzano on the "th o #e$ruary, %"%&, and on the '(th o March a second general power-o -attorney to his wi e, )ose a Samson. Manzano was the owner o a hal interest in a small steamer, the San Nicolas, the other hal $eing owned $y Oce*o, +erez , -o., with whom there was a partnership agreement to run the steamer or a ew years. .hen the period expired, Oce*o, +erez , -o., re used to continue the contact and demanded that Manzano $uy or sell. /he latter re used and 0arcia then purchased the hal interest o Oce*o, +erez , -o. Angel Manzano then sold the hal interest o his ather to 0arcia, .hen Narciso died, his wi e, )ose a $acame the administratrix o the estate o her hus$and. 1pon disco2ery o the sale o the said $oat, she sent a letter to 0arcia demanding the pro it o the 2essel. /he irst complaint iled $y 0arcia was in relation to the mortgage land in 3uezon that was transacted $y Angel Manzano. .hen )ose a iled an answer, she argued that the power-o -attorney to the wi e re2o4ed the one to the son, in accordance with article %56( o the -i2il code 7Article %"'6, N--8, and that e2en i not re2o4ed the power-o -attorney did not authorize the sale o the $oat $y Angel !. Manzano.

SS!": .ON the execution o the 'nd general power-o -attorney )ose a re2o4ed the pre2ious appointment executed in a2or o Angel.ON the notice was 2alid.

R!L NG:

Article %56( o the -i2il code is as ollows9 :/he appointment o a new agent or the same $usiness produces a re2ocation o the pre2ious agency rom the day on which notice was gi2en to the former agent, excepting the provisions of the next preceding article.; /here is no proo in the record that the irst agent, the son, 4new o the power-o -attorney to his mother. <t was necessary under the law or the de endants, in order to esta$lish their counterclaim, to pro2e that the son had notice o the second power-o -attorney. /hey ha2e not done so, and it must $e considered that Angel !. Manzano was acting under a 2alid power-o -attorney rom his ather which had not $een legally re2o4ed on the date o the sale o the hal interest in the steamer to the plainti =s son, which hal interest was legally inherited $y the plainti s. /he de endant=s next argument is that the power-o -attorney, i 2alid, does not authorize the sale o the hal interest in the $oat to the plainti . /he power-o attorney authorizes the sale o real property, the $uying o real property and mortgaging the same the $orrowing o money and in act is general and complete. /he power does not expressly state that the agent may sell the boat, $ut a power so ull and complete authoring the sale o real property, must necessarily carry with it the right to sell a hal interest in a small $oat. /he record urther shows the sale was necessary in order to get money or a credit without which it would $e impossi$le to continue the $usiness which was $eing conducted in the name o Narciso !. Manzano and or his $ene it. .e consider that the authorization is so complete that it carries with it ull authority to sell the one-hal interest in the $oat which was then owned $y Narciso !. Manzano.