Case Digest for G.R. No. 179267. Constitutional LawFull description
case digestFull description
digestFull description
reviewers's copyright to the authors.
Garcia-Recio vs. Recio case digest
crim proFull description
ggFull description
Garcia v Drilon DigestFull description
digest
SOLIS V. BARROSO (53 PHIL 912)Full description
1Full description
cjkwjkjkcwkjcbwcb
4D 2015 Legal Medicine Solis summaryFull description
Alquimia.Descripción completa
Full reproduction of Harley 3469 of British Library
Descrição: Full reproduction of Harley 3469 of British Library
People's Bank v SyvelFull description
ManzanoDescripción 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"
