Fact: On Dec. 29. 1921. Gabriela Andrea de Coster y Roxas and her hubby playing as her agent. made to the BPI a certain promissory note for P292. 000. collectible one twelvemonth after day of the month. with involvement of 9 per cent per annum and collectible monthly. In order to procure the payment thereof. Jean M. Poizat and J. M. Poizat and Co. executed a movable mortgage in favour of the complainant on the soft-shell clams Roger Poizat and Gabrielle Poizat including the machinery and stuffs belonging to the Poizat Vegetable Oil Mills. Gabriela Andreade Coster y Roxas and her hubby acknowledged and delivered to the complainant a mortgage on certain existent belongings prevarication and being situated in the City of Manila. The existent belongings was capable to a anterior mortgage in favour of La Orden de Dominicos or PP. Predicadores de la Provinciadel Santisimo Rosario. hence it is made a party suspect. The promissory is long yesteryear due which compel the complainant to register an action against the suspects.

The lower tribunal rendered judgement against the suspects GabrielaAndrea de Coster y Roxas. Jean M. Poizat and J. M. Poizat andCo. and made them apt. jointly and independently. for the payment of P292. 000. with involvement at the rate of 9 per cent per annum get downing from the 31st of August. 1923. They are besides order to pay P10. 000 as attorney’s fees and P2. 500 for the insurance upon the soft-shell clam Gabrielle Poizat. with involvement on that sum get downing from February 9. 1924. at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. and costs.

Then the complainant files a request to the tribunal for a writ of executing. On May 3. 1924. the complainant files a gesture to declare the suspects in default due to their failure to look or reply. The tribunal rendered determination in favour of the complainants. On Aug. 26. 1924. Gabriela Andrea de Coster y Roxas. claimed that she had been shacking in Paris. France from 1908 until April 30. 1924 and that she merely found out about the instance from the newspapers. She farther claims that she was ne’er given any biddings by the sheriff and that her hubby exceeded his authorization as her agent. She prayed that the judgement to be annulled and set aside. She besides prayed that the instance be reopened and she be permitted to register an reply so that the instance can be tried harmonizing to its virtues.

Issue:

• Whether or non proper biddings were served.

• Whether or non Jean M. Poizat. hubby of the suspect exceeded his authorization as an agent of his married woman.

• Whether or non the instance should be remanded to the lower tribunal.

HELD: With respects to the first issue. the Court held that the biddings has non been decently served. In the ordinary class of things when the married woman is absent from the abode of hubby by ground of pleasance or concern. the abode of the married woman would go on and stay to be that of the hubby. In the instant instance. the fortunes warrant otherwise. For 15 old ages the abode of the hubby was in the City of Manila. and the abode of the married woman was in the City of Paris prior to the filing of the ailment and issue of biddings. . There have been no personal service of summon on the suspect as required by the Rules of Court because the publication demand for functioning of biddings to individuals made party to a instance who are shacking abroad has non been satisfied.

With respects to the 2nd issue. the Court held that Jean M. Poizat has exceeded his authorization as the agent of his married woman. It will be noted that there is no proviso in power of lawyer granted to the hubby of the suspect which authorizes or empowers him to subscribe anything or to make anything which would do his married woman apt as a surety for a preexistent debt. It is cardinal regulation of building that in an instrument where powers and responsibilities are specified and defined. all of such powers and responsibilities are limited and confined to those expressly mentioned therein and all other powers and responsibilities are excluded. It is really evident from the face of the instrument that the intent of the power of lawyer was to authorise and authorise the hubby to look after and protect the involvements of his married woman. But nowhere does it supply or authorise him to do her apt as a surety for the payment of the preexistent debt of a 3rd individual.

Therefore. it follows that the hubby was non authorized or empowered to subscribe the note in inquiry for and on behalf of his married woman. Therefore. the note is null for privation of power of the hubby to put to death it. The same thing is true as to the existent mortgage to the bank. It was given to procure the note in inquiry and was non given for any other intent. The existent belongings described in the mortgage was the belongings of the married woman. The note being null as far the married woman is concern. it follows that the existent mortgage to the bank is besides null for privation of power to put to death it.

On the last issue. the Court held that the instance should be remanded to the lower tribunal to give the married woman chance to register an reply to plaintiff’s cause of action so that the instance can be tried harmonizing to its virtues.