Title
Calubad vs. Ricarcen Development Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 202364
Decision Date
Aug 30, 2017
Ricarcen Development Corporation estopped from denying president's authority in loan and mortgage transactions due to apparent authority and estoppel.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202364)

Petitioner

Arturo C. Calubad, lender and purchaser at extrajudicial foreclosure sale, insisting Ricarcen is estopped from denying Marilyn’s authority and benefited from the loan proceeds.

Respondent

Ricarcen Development Corporation, a family-owned real estate lessor, repudiating Marilyn’s acts as unauthorized and the mortgage contracts as void, alleging fabricated corporate resolutions and certificates.

Key Dates

• October 15, 2001: Original P4 million loan and mortgage executed.
• December 6, 2001 & May 8, 2002: Amendments increasing the loan to P5 million and an additional P2 million.
• March 19–27, 2003: Extrajudicial foreclosure and issuance of Certificate of Sale to Calubad.
• January 6, 2009: RTC grants Ricarcen’s complaint, annuls mortgage and foreclosure.
• January 25, 2012: CA affirms RTC decision.
• August 30, 2017: Supreme Court renders decision under the 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision after 1990)
• Corporation Code, Art. 23 (corporate powers exercised by board, delegable to officers)
• Civil Code Art. 1317 (necessity of delegation to bind principal)
• Civil Code Art. 1431 & 1869 (estoppel and implied agency)
• Jurisprudence on apparent authority and estoppel (Yao Ka Sin Trading v. Court of Appeals)

Loan and Mortgage Transactions

Marilyn, as president, executed three mortgage contracts securing P4 million, then P5 million, and finally P7 million in aggregate loans. The first interest payment was deducted from proceeds. Calubad required and received a board resolution and two secretary’s certificates allegedly authorizing Marilyn. Loan proceeds were disbursed via checks to Ricarcen’s account, and Ricarcen issued multiple interest-payment checks to Calubad.

Fabrication of Corporate Documents

Ricarcen later discovered in July 2003 that the board resolution and secretary’s certificates presented to Calubad were not recorded in the notarial register. The corporate secretary, Elizabeth, denied signing the specific documents, attributing signed blank sheets to Marilyn’s misuse.

Lower Courts’ Rulings

The RTC annulled the mortgage contracts and foreclosure for lack of proof of Marilyn’s authority and fabrication of corporate documents. It dismissed claims against Registry of Deeds personnel. The CA upheld the RTC, finding that the presumption of validity of notarized corporate acts was overcome by clear, convincing proof of fabrication. It rejected laches and estoppel arguments by Calubad.

Exception to Rule 45 Review

The Supreme Court held that an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 may consider factual findings when “the inference made is manifestly mistaken.” It found the lower courts’ refusal to recognize estoppel based on apparent authority to be a misapprehension of facts requiring correction.

Doctrine of Apparent Authority and Estoppel

Under the 1987 Constitution and relevant statutes, a corporation is estopped from denying the apparent authority it negligently or intentionally grants to an officer, as to innocent third parties who deal in good faith. Apparent authority arises from the principal’s conduct, not merely the agent’s acts.

Evidence of Ricarcen’




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.