Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Katigbak v.

Tai Hing Co

Facts:

 On November 29, 1921, Po Tecsi executed a general power of attorney in favor of his brother Gabino Barreto Po Ejap,
empowering and authorizing him to perform on his behalf and as lawful agent, among other acts, the following: "To buy, sell or
barter, assign or admit in acquittance, or in any other manner to acquire or convey all sorts of property, real and personal,
businesses and industries, credits, rights and action belonging to me, for whatever prices and under the conditions which he
may stipulate, paying and receiving payment in cash or in installments, and to execute the proper instruments with the formalities
provided by the law."
 Subsequently, Gabino Barreto sold the land in question to Po Tecsi evidenced by an instrument acknowledging the latter's debt
to the latter by virtue of the sale.
 On November 22, 1923, Gabino made use of his power of attorney and sold the land in question to petitioner Katigbak. Po
Tecsi remained in possession of the property.
 Po Sun Soy, son of Po Tecsi, became the administrator of the latter's estate after his death. The land in question was included
in said estate.
 On May 22, 1927, Petitioner Katigbak sold the land in question to Po Sun Boo.
 Po Tecsi leased the land in question from Gabino, who has administered the land in the name of Katigbak.
 Po Tecsi, and his son after his death, has failed to pay rent for continuously occupying the land after Katigbak has bought it
Petitioner went to the Court of First Instance of Manila for recovery of said rent amounting to 45,280 pesos against Tai Hing
Co.
 The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered respondent to pay for rent.
 Po Sun Soy, a member of said company and intervenor, averred that the Court of First Instance of Manila had no jurisdiction
over the case and that petitioner is not the owner of the property in question.

Issues:

1. WON Gabino, agent of Po Tecsi, had the authority to sell the land in question to Katigbak.
2. WON the Court of First Instance of Manila have jurisdiction over the case.

Held:

1. Yes, Gabino, agent of Po Tecsi, have authority to sell the land in question to Katigbak.

a. Intervenors averred that Gabino had no authority to sell the land in question because it was obtained by Po Tecsi after the
power of attorney was given to the former.
The Court disagrees with the intervenors as the power given to Gabino is general and authorizes him to sell any kind of realty
“belonging” The word used in the power of attorney given by Po Tecsi to Gabino was “pertenezcan” (might belong) and not “pertenecen”
(belong). This means that Gabino had authority to sell lands that were owned by Po Tecsi after the execution of the power, as well as
before.

b. The intervenors also posit that the power of attorney in question has no effect because it was not registered in the Registry of Deeds.

The Court Agrees that a sale, through an agent , of a real estate holds no effect on third parties if the power of attorney is not registered.
However, it is binding to the principal who is bound by the acts of his agent. Therefore, Po Tecsi and his successor should respect the
sale of said property.

2. Yes, the Courts of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the case.

Intervenors’ Stand: Intervenors posits that the CIR of Manila has no jurisdiction over the case as the property in question is located in
Leyte.

The Court disagrees as the recovery of rent is a personal action and maybe raised by the petitioner in his residence, Manila in this
case. Likewise, the intervenors are deemed to have submitted to the authority of CIR Manila when they raised the question of
ownership.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi