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 instituted by Gregorio Jimenez to recover from the defendant, 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. On February 7, 1911, he wrote his sister a letter from Vigan informing her that he was pressed for 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. A year later, Jimenez demanded that his sister return the subject parcel to him. Nicolasa refused. Gregorio, together with his other siblings, then filed action for the recovery of their land. The action was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. Meanwhile, Nicolasa executed and delivered to defendant Rabot a deed purporting to convey to him the 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 in favor of plaintiffs.

2.

3.

4.

Issue: Whether the authority conferred on Nicolasa by Gregorios letter sufficient to enable her to bind her brother 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 particular 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.