Short answer. No. Article 1877 confines an agency couched in general terms to acts of administration, however sweeping its language. Selling or mortgaging is an act of ownership, so it needs a special power that names the transaction and the property. A broad clause will not supply it.
What the law says
An agency couched in general terms comprises only acts of administration, even if the principal should state that he withholds no power or that the agent may execute such acts as he may consider appropriate, or even though the agency should authorize a general and unlimited management.
Civil Code, Article 1877 — General Terms Cover Only Administration. Read the full provision →
What the law says
A special power to sell excludes the power to mortgage; and a special power to mortgage does not include the power to sell.
Civil Code, Article 1879 — Sell vs. Mortgage. Read the full provision →
Sweeping words do not enlarge a general power
Article 1877 was written against exactly the clause people rely on. An agency in general terms comprises only acts of administration, even if the principal should state that he withholds no power or that the agent may execute such acts as he may consider appropriate, or even though the agency should authorize a general and unlimited management. So 'full power to do everything I could do myself' adds nothing. The document's breadth is irrelevant; what governs is the nature of the act, and disposing of property is not administration.
Administration and ownership are different things
Acts of administration preserve and manage: collecting rent, paying taxes, making repairs, hiring caretakers, leasing for a short term, keeping the property productive. Acts of ownership dispose of or burden the asset — selling it, mortgaging it, donating it, creating real rights over it. A general power lets the agent look after the property. It does not let him part with it. That distinction is why an agent holding a broad instrument can run a business for years and still be unable to sell a single parcel.
Special powers are read narrowly, one act at a time
Even a properly executed special power is confined to what it says. Article 1879 makes the point sharply: a special power to sell excludes the power to mortgage; and a special power to mortgage does not include the power to sell. Naming the transaction and identifying the property are therefore not formalities but the substance of the authority. And where land is involved the authority must be in writing, since a sale of land through an agent whose authority is not written is void.
What this means on both sides of a deal
If you are the principal, do not hand out a general power expecting it to cover a disposal, and do not sign a special one until you know precisely which property and which transaction you are authorising. If you are the buyer or the lender, read the instrument rather than the notarial seal: ask whether it names this property and this act, whether it is written, and whether it has been revoked. A deal closed on an inadequate power is the one that unravels years later.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System (Afp-Rsbs) vs. Plastic King Industrial Corp, G.R. No. 231395, June 26, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine National Bank Binalbagan Branch, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental vs. Antonio Tad-Y, for himself, G.R. No. 214588, September 7, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sally Yoshizaki vs. Joy Training Center of Aurora, Inc, G.R. No. 174978, July 31, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1877 — General Terms Cover Only Administration
- Civil Code, Article 1878 — Acts Requiring a Special Power of Attorney
- Civil Code, Article 1879 — Sell vs. Mortgage