Case Summary (G.R. No. 77008)
Procedural History
Lopez, represented by Ty, filed an action for ejectment against Murillo on June 5, 1984, in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, which resulted in a judgment favoring Lopez. The case number is Civil Case No. 0045993. The validity of the special power of attorney presented by Ty, purportedly issued by Lopez before a city judge-notary public in Oslo, Norway, was called into question during subsequent appeals. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the initial ruling on November 15, 1985, citing the inadmissibility of the special power of attorney due to its lack of authentication.
Key Legal Question
The primary issue before the court is whether a special power of attorney executed in a foreign country is admissible as a public document in Philippine courts without prior proof of its due execution and authenticity.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals denied Lopez's petition for certiorari, upholding the RTC’s decision. The appellate court emphasized that Ty, as the attorney-in-fact, was not the real party-in-interest and that the action was erroneously filed without demonstrated authority through a properly authenticated special power of attorney.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Bienvenido Ejercito presented a dissenting opinion, arguing that since the special power of attorney was notarized, its authenticity should not require additional proof to be admitted as evidence.
Court’s Rationale
In its decision, the court elaborated on the requirements for the admissibility of documents executed outside the Philippines. It referenced Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, asserting that a public document executed before a notary public in another country must be accompanied by a certification from a Philippine consular officer to be considered valid in Philippine courts. The failure to present such certification rendered the special power of attorney inadmissible.
Jurisdictional Implications
The court ruled that the absence of a valid special power of attorney meant that the lower courts had no jurisdiction over the case. Thus, all procee
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 77008)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for review of a decision rendered by the Special 5th Division of the Court of Appeals on September 30, 1986.
- The central legal issue is the admissibility of a special power of attorney executed abroad as a public document in Philippine courts.
Background of the Case
- On June 5, 1984, Angelita Lopez, a Filipino citizen residing in Norway, initiated an ejectment action against Antonio Murillo, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Priscilla L. Ty, in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City (Civil Case No. 0045993).
- Priscilla L. Ty presented a special power of attorney executed before a city judge-notary public in Oslo, Norway, which was admitted by the court.
- The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Lopez on November 25, 1984, ordering the ejectment of Murillo.
Appeals and Legal Disputes
- Murillo appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, challenging the authority of Ty on grounds that the special power of attorney was inadmissible due to lack of proof of its due execution and authenticity (docketed as Q-44813).
- The RTC, in its November 15, 1985 decision, reversed the lower court's ruling, declaring the special power of attorney inadmissible and concluding that the suit was not filed by the real party-in-interest.
Court of Appeals Decision
- Following the RTC's decision, Lopez filed a motion for reconsideration, which