Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Bpi v. de Coster

    Uploaded by

    Ruperto A. Alfafara III
    The defendant Gabriela De Coster y Roxas executed a power of attorney granting her husband Jean Poizat the authority to loan and borrow money on her behalf. Poizat used this authority to secure a loan from BPI by mortgaging De Coster's property, but the loan was to pay off Poizat's personal debts. The court ruled that De Coster was not liable for the loan because the power of attorney did not authorize Poizat to use her property as collateral for his own debts. Specifically, the power of attorney allowed Poizat to conduct business for De Coster but did not make her liable as a surety for third party debts. As the loan was taken out to pay

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bpi v. de Coster

    Uploaded by

    Ruperto A. Alfafara III
    1K views2 pages
    The defendant Gabriela De Coster y Roxas executed a power of attorney granting her husband Jean Poizat the authority to loan and borrow money on her behalf. Poizat used this authority to secure a loan from BPI by mortgaging De Coster's property, but the loan was to pay off Poizat's personal debts. The court ruled that De Coster was not liable for the loan because the power of attorney did not authorize Poizat to use her property as collateral for his own debts. Specifically, the power of attorney allowed Poizat to conduct business for De Coster but did not make her liable as a surety for third party debts. As the loan was taken out to pay

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    BPI V. DE COSTER

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant Gabriela De Coster y Roxas executed a power of attorney granting her husband Jean Poizat the authority to loan and borrow money on her behalf. Poizat used this authority to secure a loan from BPI by mortgaging De Coster's property, but the loan was to pay off Poizat's personal debts. The court ruled that De Coster was not liable for the loan because the power of attorney did not authorize Poizat to use her property as collateral for his own debts. Specifically, the power of attorney allowed Poizat to conduct business for De Coster but did not make her liable as a surety for third party debts. As the loan was taken out to pay

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Bpi v. de Coster

    Uploaded by

    Ruperto A. Alfafara III
    The defendant Gabriela De Coster y Roxas executed a power of attorney granting her husband Jean Poizat the authority to loan and borrow money on her behalf. Poizat used this authority to secure a loan from BPI by mortgaging De Coster's property, but the loan was to pay off Poizat's personal debts. The court ruled that De Coster was not liable for the loan because the power of attorney did not authorize Poizat to use her property as collateral for his own debts. Specifically, the power of attorney allowed Poizat to conduct business for De Coster but did not make her liable as a surety for third party debts. As the loan was taken out to pay

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BPI V.

    DE COSTER
    G.R. No. L-23181

    March 16, 1925

    Note:
    A power of attorney to loan and borrow money and to mortgage the principals
    property does NOT carry with it or imply that the agent has a legal right to make the
    principal liable for the personal debts of the agent.
    FACTS:
    Defendant Gabriela Andrea de Coster y Roxas executed a Special Power of
    Attorney in favor of her husband. This authority gave Jean M. Poizat
    (agenthusband) the power to loan and borrow money in her behalf. The
    agent was able to obtain a loan from BPI, secured by a chattel mortgage
    on the steamers of his company, Poizat Vegetable Oil Mills and a real mortgage
    over a property, which is also subject to another mortgage in favor of La Orden de
    Dominicos.
    Defendants defaulted on their obligations to BPI and La Orden de Dominicos. Thus,
    both creditors prayed for the forclosure of the mortgaged properties.
    RTC declared the defendants in default for their failure to appear and
    ruled in favor of he plaintiffs. De Coster alleges that she never had any
    knowledge of the actual facts until she read about her default in the
    newspapers, since she was not in the Philippines when the summons were
    served; that her husband fled the country; that the mortgages executed
    by her agent husband was without marital consent; and that he did not
    have any authority to make her liable as surety on the debt of a third
    personit being a personal debt of her husband and his company.
    ISSUE:
    W/N the principal-wife, Gabriela De Coster y Roxas, is liable for the mortgage
    executed by her agent husband, Jean Poizat
    HELD:
    NO. The note and mortgage show upon their face that at the time they
    were executed, the agent-husband was attorney-in-fact for the defendant
    wife, and the bank knew or should have known the nature and extent of
    his authority and the limitations upon his power. Par. 5 of the Power of
    Attorney authorizes the agent husband for and in the name of his wife to loan or
    borrow any sums of money or fungible things, etc. This is taken to mean that
    he only had the power to loan his wifes money and to borrow money for
    or on account of his wife as her agent and attorney-in-fact. It does not
    carry with it or imply that he had the legal right to make his wife liable as
    a surety for the preexisting debt of a third person.

    It is fundamental rule of construction that where in an instrument powers and


    duties are specified and defined, that all of such powers and duties are
    limited and confined to those which are specified and defined, and that all
    other powers and duties are excluded.
    The fact that the agent-husband failed and neglected to perform his duties
    and to represent the interests of his principal is NOT a bar to the principal
    obtaining legal relief for the negligence of her agent.
    It is apparent from the face of the instrument that the whole purpose and intent of
    the power of attorney was to empower and authorize the agent-husband to look
    after and protect the interests of the wife and for her and in her name to
    transact any and all of her business. But nowhere does it provide or
    authorize him to make her liable as a surety for the payment of the
    preexisting debt of a third person.
    Thus, the agent-husband does not have the authority to sign the note and
    to execute the mortgage for and on behalf of the wife as her act and deed,
    and that as to her the note is void for want of power of her husband to
    execute it.

    You might also like