NATIVIDAD HERRERA,ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND EMIGDIO SALAZAR,

PLANTIFFS-APPELANTS
V.
LUY KIM GUAN AND LINO BANGAYAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

GR No. L-17043 January 31, 1961

Barrera, J.
SV: Natividad Herrera is the daughter of Luis Herrera who executed a general
power of attorney in favor of Luy Kim Guan to sell and administer his
properties. NAtividad is now questioning the validity of the transactions
entered into by Luy Kim Guan on the ground that agency was already
extinguished (by way of death of Luis Herrera) at the time the lots were sold.
SC: Natividad wasnt able to prove by evidence that Luis indeed died before
the transactions of sale were entered into by Luy Kim Guan. Also even if we
assume that Luis did in fact die before the sales were executed, NAtividad
failed to show that Luy Kim Guan knew of such fact. The death of the
principal would not automatically render the acts of the agent unenforceable
if the agent did not know of such extinguishment (death of the principal)
1. Natividad Herrera is the legitimate daughter of Luis Herrerawho owned
3 parcels of land and their improvements known as lots 1740, 4465
and 4467.
2. Before leaving for China (where Luis died) Luis, executed on Dec 1,
1931 a deed of General Power of Attorney which authorized Luy Kim
Guan to administer and sell the properties of Luis Herrera
3. LOT 1740: originally in the name of Luis Herrera, married to Go Bang
under an OCT. this was sold by Luy Kim Guan in his capacity as
attorney in fact to Luy Chay. TCT was issued in the name of Luy Chay
by virtue of a deed of sale. Luy Chay executed a deed of mortgage
over the property to secure a loan and subsequently sold the lot to
Lino Bangayan. TCT was likewise issued to Bangayan by virtue of a
deed of sale.
4. LOTS 4465 and 4467: originally registered to Luis Herrera under an
OCT. these lots were sold to Luy Kim Guan(1/2 share over the lots, sold
by luis to Luy Kim on Dec 1, 1931) and Nicomedes Salazar (1/2 share
over the lots, sold by Luy Kim as atty in fact to Salazar on July 23,
1937) with equal shares on each lot. Lot 4465 was sold to Carlos
Eijansantos for P100,000. as for Lot 4467, Salazar sold his one half
share over the lot to Bangayan, a new TCT was issued in favor of Luy
Kim Guan and BAngayan as co-owners in equal shares.
5. as admitted by both parties Luis Herrera is now deceased but as to the
specific date of his death, the evidence of both parties failed to show
such fact.
6. Natividad is arguing that all the transactions mentioned above were all
fraudulent as they were executed after the death of Luis Herrera which
makes the power of attorney no longer operative. It is also claimed
that Lino Bangayan and Luy Kim Guan are Chinese by nationality and
are disqualified to acquire real properties. Lastly, Natividad claims that
the supposed deed of sale allegedly executed by Luis Herrera in favor
of Luy Kim Guan conveying shares over the 2 lots was actually a
lease contract

ISSUES
1. Was the contract executed by Luis Herrera and Luy Kim Guan a lease
contract? No
a. The only evidence in support of Natividads contentions is her
own testimony and that of her husbands. this was supposedly
corroborated by the declaration of the clerk of Atty. Enrique
Fernandez who supposedly notarized the lease contract. no
other evidence was adduced
b. On the other hand, Luy Kim Guan was able to present a
certification signed by the register of deeds of Dipolog to the
effect that a deed of sale was executed by Luis Herrera in favor
of Luy Kim Guan. The transactions were duly recorded and
covered by appropriate transfer certificates of title the
properties are now registered in the following manner
i. Lot 1740: Lino BAngayan
ii. Lot 4465: Carlos Eijansantos
iii. Lot 4467: Lino Bangayan and Luy Kim Guan in undivided
equal shares
c. Also, if it was a lease contract covering the 3 lots for a period of
20 years, there would have been no purpose for him to
constitute Luy Kim Guan as his atty-in-fact to administer and
take charge of the same properties already covered by the lease
contract
2. Were the transactions null and void because they were executed by
the atty-in-fact after the death of the Principal? NO
a. Date of death of Luis Herrera has not been satisfactorily proven.
b. The only evidence presented by Natividad is a letter from a
certain Candi informing them that Luis Herrera died in August
1936. this was rejected by the lower court for lack of
identification
c. On the other hand, there was a testimony of the witness Chung
Lian to the effect that when he was in Amoy in 1940, Luis
Herrera visited him showing that Luis was still alive at that time.
d. The atty-in-fact was executed in 1937, while the other was in
1939. if we are to believe the testimony, then Luis was still alive
when the documents were executed
e. Even if we assume that Luis died in 1936, Natividad failed to
show that Luy Kim Guan knew of this fact when he sold the
property. The death of the principal does not render the
act of an agent unenforceable, where the latter had no
knowledge of such extinguishment of the agency.
3. on the citizenship of the buyers of the lots
a. luy Chay was referred to as a citizen of the Philippines in the
deed of sale. Luy Chay could have been actually a Chinese
Citizen but the lot was already sold to Lino Bangayan
b. Lino Bangayan was declared by the lower court to have
established his Philippine Citizenship

c. Luy Kim Guan is a Chinese Citizen but he acquired the lots

before the constitution was adopted (which bars the acquisition
of real property by non-citizens). Ownership cannot be attacked
on account of his citizenship.
Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.