G.R. No. 77008 - Lopez vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Angelita Lopez, represented by Priscilla L. Ty as her attorney-in-fact, filed an action in connection with the ownership and possession of certain premises.
Private respondent was Antonio Murillo.
The respondents in the petition for review included the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 103), and Antonio Murillo.

On June 5, 1984, petitioner, through alleged attorney-in-fact Priscilla L. Ty, who was a Filipino citizen residing in Norway, filed an action for ejectment against Antonio Murillo in the Metropolitan Trial Court of the Metropolitan Manila in Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. 0045993.
Priscilla L. Ty presented to the Metropolitan Trial Court a special power of attorney authorizing her to prosecute the case on behalf of petitioner.
The special power of attorney was allegedly executed by petitioner before a city judge-notary public of Oslo, Norway.
The special power of attorney was admitted by the Metropolitan Trial Court.
On November 25, 1984, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner, finding the ejectment of private respondent from the subject premises warranted.

On appeal, private respondent assailed, among others, the authority of Mrs. Ty to bring the action.
The ground raised was that the special power of attorney submitted was inadmissible in evidence unless its due execution and authenticity were first proved.
The appeal was docketed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City as Q-44813.
In its decision of November 15, 1985, the Regional Trial Court reversed the Metropolitan Trial Court’s judgment.
The Regional Trial Court held that the questioned special power of attorney was inadmissible in evidence because its due execution and authenticity were not proved.
The Regional Trial Court concluded that the suit was not instituted by the real party-in-interest, nor by one duly authorized by the real party-in-interest.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Regional Trial Court decision.
The motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated June 10, 1986.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari, but it was treated as a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP-09452.
On September 30, 1986, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of merit.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the action was not filed by the proper party, stating that:

Whether the special power of attorney executed in a foreign country and notarized by a city judge-notary public in Oslo, Norway is admissible in evidence in Philippine courts as a public document.

Whether the special power of attorney’s due execution and authenticity needed to be proved as a prerequisite to admissibility.
Whether the special power of attorney required certification or authentication under Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court when executed in a foreign country.

Whether the lack of admissible proof of the attorney-in-fact’s authority meant that the action ...(Subscriber-Only)