Title
Heirs of Medina vs. Natividad
Case
G.R. No. 177505
Decision Date
Nov 27, 2008
Co-owners divided land; Gorgonio sold share to Bonifacio. Partition case led to Compromise Agreement. Bonifacio sued for annulment, but SPA lacked consular authentication, voiding case. SC dismissed due to jurisdiction issue.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195026)

Factual Antecedents

On May 16, 1969, Gorgonio Medina and other co-owners agreed to partition a parcel of land located in Guimba, Nueva Ecija. Later, on March 29, 1972, Gorgonio Medina sold his 1/3 share of the property to Bonifacio Natividad. Following disputes about ownership, a case for partition with damages was initiated by Tirso Medina in 1989, which culminated in a compromise agreement approved by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on November 20, 1989.

Compromise Agreement and Subsequent Developments

The compromise agreement adjusted the shares of the co-owners, with various lots being allocated to each co-owner. Lot 1199-C, specifically, was later registered in the name of Gorgonio Medina, who received Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. NT-230248. In 2001, Bonifacio Natividad filed a complaint for annulment of TCT No. NT-230248 and damages, claiming his entitlement to a portion of the land.

Legal Issues Raised

The principal legal issues involved were the authority of Philip M. Natividad to file the complaint on behalf of his father and whether or not the complaint stated a valid cause of action. The petitioners contended that the special power of attorney executed abroad by Bonifacio Natividad and presented by Philip lacked the necessary authentication from a Philippine consular officer, rendering it inadmissible in evidence.

Authority to Sue

The trial court ruled that the special power of attorney, despite lacking consular authentication, was sufficient to grant Philip the authority to represent Bonifacio. However, the Court of Appeals classified the issue surrounding the special power of attorney as a technicality, arguing it should not obstruct substantial justice.

Jurisdictional Considerations

The Supreme Court established that for a special power of attorney executed outside the Philippines to be admissible, it must be authenticated according to Section 25 of the Rules of Court. The absence of such authentication rendered the power of attorney inadmissible, meaning that Philip did not have the authority to file the complaint.

Voiding of Proceedings

The failure to properly authenticate the special power of attorney resulted in the nullification of all proceedings in the lower courts, as they did not have jurisdiction over the real party in interest, Bonifacio Nativi

...continue reading

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