Lopez v CA
GR No. L-77008, 29 Dec 1987
Facts:
1.
Petitioner Angelita Lopez who is
a Filipino citizen residing in Norway, represented by her alleged
attorney-in-fact Priscilla L. Ty -filed an action for ejectment against private
respondent.
2.
Mrs. Ty presented to the MTC a special power of attorney authorizing
her to prosecute the case in behalf of petitioner which appears to have been
executed by petitioner before a city judge-notary public of Oslo, Norway. It
was duly admitted by the Court.
3.
MTC: rendered a judgment in
favor of petitioner finding the ejectment of private respondent from the subject
premises as warranted.
4.
Private respondent appealed to the RTC of Quezon City assailing among
others the authority of Mrs. Ty to bring the action on the ground that the
special power of attorney she submitted is inadmissible in evidence unless its
due execution and its authenticity is first proved.
5.
RTC: reversed the judgment; SPA is inadmissible in evidence inasmuch as
it is due execution and authenticity was not proved. Thus the court concluded
that the suit was not instituted by the real party-in-interest nor by his duly authorized
representative.
6.
MR denied. Petitioner elevated the case to the CA by way of a petition
for certiorari but which was treated as a petition for review.
7.
CA: denied the petition for lack of merit
a. the action was not filed by the
proper party. The real party in-interest here is Angelita Lopez who turned out
to be the registered owner.
b. The action was filed by an attorney-in-fact
under a supposed special power of attorney. The due execution of (the) said
special power of attorney was not established. An action can be filed only by
the real party in-interest. An attorney-in-fact has no interest in the
litigation
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
In a dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Bienvenido
Ejercito he espoused the view that the special power of attorney being a public
document duly executed before a notary public, its authenticity need not be
proved.
The Court issued a TRO enjoining the respondents from
enforcing the decision and the order of the RTC.
In a resolution, the Court gave due course to the
petition. Thereafter the parties submitted their respective memorandum.
Contentions:
Mrs. Ty contends that inasmuch as the SPA in question
is notarized, it is a public document which should be admitted in evidence
without need of authentication and/or proof of due execution.
On the other hand,
the private respondent argues that the same cannot be considered as a public
document because its authenticity has not been proved by Mrs. Ty in accordance
with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of Court.
Issue:
WON a special power of attorney executed in a foreign
country is admissible in evidence as a public document in our courts.
Held:
Is the special power of attorney relied upon by Mrs.
Ty a public document?
We find that it is. It has been notarized by a notary
public or by a competent public official with all the solemnities required by
law of a public document.
When executed and acknowledged in the Philippines,
such a public document or a certified true copy thereof is admissible in
evidence. Its due execution and
authentication need not be proven unlike a private writing.
Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides-
Sec. 25. Proof of public or official record. — An
official record or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate
that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is
in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of embassy or
legation consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office.
From the foregoing provision, when the SPA is executed
and acknowledged before a notary public or other competent official in a
foreign country, it cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is certified as
such in accordance with the foregoing provision of the rules by a secretary of
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or
by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept of said public document and
authenticated by the seal of his office. A city judge-notary who notarized the
document, as in this case, cannot issue such certification.
Considering that the record of the case does not
disclose any compliance with the provisions of Section 25, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court on the part of the petitioner, the SPA in question is not admissible in evidence. As such, Mrs.
Priscilla L. Ty cannot lawfully prosecute the case against the private
respondents in the name of her principal as her authority through a SPA had not
been duly established in evidence. The litigation was not commenced by the real
party-in-interest or by one duly authorized by the said party.
This being so, the MTC, RTC, and CA never acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the real party-in-interest — Angelita Lopez.
For lack of the requisite jurisdiction, all the proceedings in the said courts
are null and void ab initio. All proceedings therein should be and are hereby
set aside.
Accordingly, it is Our considered opinion, and We so
hold, that a SPA executed before a city judge-public notary in a foreign
country, without the certification or authentication required under Section 25,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, is not admissible in evidence in Philippine
courts.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the entire proceedings
in the MTC, RTC and CA are hereby declared null and void and the case is
DISMISSED without costs. The TRO issued is hereby lifted.
No comments:
Post a Comment