THIRD DIVISION
|
HEIRS OF
GORGONIO MEDINA, namely: LEONOR T. MEDINA, RAMON T. MEDINA, ABIEL T. MEDINA,
ILUDIVINA M. ROSARI, CONCEPCION DE LA CRUZ, LEONOR M. BAKKER, SAMUEL T.
MEDINA, VICTOR T. MEDINA, TERESITA M. SABADO, JOSEFINA M. CANAS and VERONICA
M. DE GUZMAN.
Petitioners, - versus - BONIFACIO
NATIVIDAD, represented by PHILIP M. NATIVIDAD,
Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 177505 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: November 27, 2008 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before
Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which seeks to set aside the
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated 20 November 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 82160 affirming with
modification the Decision[2] of
Branch 33 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, in Civil
Case No. 1165-G and its Resolution[3]
dated 16 April 2007 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
The
factual antecedents are as follows:
On
16 May 1969, Tirso Medina, Pacifico M. Ruiz, Gorgonio D. Medina, Vivencio M.
Ruiz, and Dominica Medina, co-owners of a parcel of land (Lot 1199, Cad-162,
Guimba Cadastre, plan Ap-23418) situated in Poblacion, Municipality of Guimba,
Province of Nueva Ecija, containing an area of two thousand three hundred thirty
nine (2,339) square meters, agreed to divide and allot for themselves the said
land. A sketch[4]
signed by the co-owners showed the respective portions of land allotted to
each. Gorgonio D. Medina received two
portions of said land. One portion was
allotted to him alone, while the second portion was allotted to him together
with Tirso Medina and Pacifico M. Ruiz.
This second portion is labeled as “Gorgonio Medina, Tirso Medina and
Pacifico M. Ruiz” which is adjacent to the portion labeled as “Dominica Medina.”
On
P2,000.00 his
share (1/3) in the second portion of land including the improvements found
therein.
Subsequently,
a case for Partition with Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 781-G, was filed
before the RTC of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33, by Tirso Medina against the
co-owners of
The
parties entered into a compromise agreement which they submitted to the Court. On
COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT
COME NOW the parties, assisted by their respective counsel(s), and unto this Honorable Court respectfully submit this Compromise Agreement in full and final settlement of their differences, to wit:
1. The parties herein are the exclusive co-owners of that certain parcel of land located at the Poblacion, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, known as Lot 1199, Guimba Cadastre and more particularly described as follows:
A
parcel of land (
x x x x
2. The herein parties recognize and acknowledge that their respective shares in the property aforementioned as appearing in the aforesaid Original Certificate of Title No. 130366 have been modified by agreement between them to allot a portion thereof to their co-owner, Vivencio M. Ruiz, to compensate for valuable services rendered to the parties vis-à-vis the said property, separate and apart from his rightful share therein as participating heir of Maria Medina;
3. The plaintiff Tirso Medina hereby withdraws any/all statements appearing on record which he may have made in said case in the course of his testimony therein, and hereby asks the Honorable Court that said statements be expunged or withdrawn from the record;
4. The foregoing considered, the parties have determined that it is to their mutual convenience and advantage, and in accord with their common desire to preserve and maintain the existing family harmony and solidarity to terminate their present community of ownership in the property aforementioned by mutual agreement and adjudication, in the manner appearing in the Sketch Plan of Partition attached as an integral part hereof as Annex “A” where the property is subdivided into Lot 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and adjudicated, as follows:
a. To Bonifacio Natividad, Lot No. 1, consisting of 480 square meters, more or less, representing the interests of Dominica Medina which was sold to him per document of “Sale of Rights, Waiver and Renunciation” appearing as Doc. No. 367; Page No. 75; Book No. 10; Series of 1968 in the Notarial Register of Atty.
b. To VIVENCIO M. RUIZ, Lot No. 3 consisting of 370.21 square meters, more or less, as compensation for valuable services rendered; free and clear from any/all liens or encumbrances whatsoever or from the claims of any person whomsoever, except the present tenant/s thereon;
c. To the heirs of MARIA MEDINA, Lot No. 2 consisting of 370.21 square meters, more or less, without prejudice to sales and dispositions already made by the respective heirs of their interests and participations therein;
d.
To TIRSO
e. To the heirs of PACIFICO M. RUIZ, Lot No. 5 consisting of 369.29 square meters, more or less, and
f.
To GORGONIA
On
[T[hat the parties thereafter, engaged the services of one common geodetic engineer in the person of Rolly Francisco to conduct the survey and effect the subdivision of Lot 1199, which was subdivided into Lots A, B, C, D, E, and F, the area of which appears, thus:
Lot 1199-F with an area of 372 sq. ms., which lot now corresponds to Lot No. 3 adjudicated to Vivencio M. Ruiz; that in this subdivision made by the geodetic engineer, there was no change in the designation of the particular places adjudicated to the parties, except the change in areas allotted after the actual survey made.
WHEREFORE, finding the motion to be in order, the Court resolves to grant the same and hereby orders, that:
This
Order supplements the Decision dated
Pursuant to the court-approved
partition,
On
Bonifacio, thru Philip, filed a
Motion for Bill of Particulars[12]
praying that an order be issued by the court directing Abiel Medina and
Veronica de Guzman to give the names and present addresses of all the heirs of
Gorgonio Medina. Said motion was
opposed.[13] In an order dated
On
1. To file all appropriate cases in court against the heirs of Gorgonio Medina for the recovery of the lot that I purchased from said Gorgonio Medina by virtue of Deed of Absolute Sale executed on March 29, 1972 and notarized by Atty. Inocencio B. Garampil under Doc. No. 435, Page No. 87, Book No. 1, Series of 1972, which lot is now titled in the name of Gorgonio Medina under Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-230248;
2. To institute all legal actions/cases in court for the annulment of said Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT -230248 which now covers the lot I bought from Gorgonio Medina;
3.
To represent me in all
proceedings/hearings of the above-mentioned case/s up to its termination;
4.
To enter into a fair and reasonable
compromise agreement and do all acts for the protection and preservation of my
rights and interest over the above-mentioned lot;
5.
To negotiate/transact with all persons,
secure and sign all necessary documents for the attainment of the above
purposes.
In an Order dated[18]
On
During the Pre-Trial, the parties
stipulated the following facts and issues:
a. TCT No. N-230248 in the name of Gorgonio Medina covers 371 square meters. This title was one of the titles issued as transfer from Original Certificate of Title No. 130366.[22]
b. TCT No. 230248 came into being by virtue of the decision in Civil Case No. 781-G, a case of partition among Gorgonio Medina and his co-heirs decided by RTC Branch 33.
c. The late Gorgonio
Medina executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over 1/3 portion of his share in a
parcel of land (
d. The land subject of the deed of sale is not the one covered by TCT No. 230248.
Issues:
1. Whether the deed of sale of sale may be given effect notwithstanding the fact that the subject thereof is different from the portion covered by TCT No. 230248.
2. Whether Mr. Philip Natividad is duly authorized to represent his father, Bonifacio Natividad in this case.[23]
The parties manifested that
after they shall have filed their respective memoranda, the case shall be
submitted for decision.
In
its decision dated
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff ordering the defendants to convey to the plaintiff 1/3 portion of the lot covered by TCT No. 230248 together with the improvements thereon and to account for, and deliver to the plaintiff the income derived therefrom from the institution of this case up to the execution of this decision.
No pronouncement as to damages there being no reservation made by the plaintiff to present evidence thereof.[24]
On
the issue of Philip Natividad’s authority to represent his father, the court
ruled that it was convinced that Philip was authorized to represent his father
by virtue of a notarized special power of attorney executed by Bonifacio
attached to the amended complaint. It
explained that the document was a public document as defined under Section 20,
paragraph (a) of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the same having been notarized
by a notary public for the State of Washington, USA. In the absence of any evidence to show that
said special power of attorney was falsified, it was sufficient authority for
Mr. Natividad to represent his father.
The
trial court likewise ruled that the deed of absolute sale executed by Gorgonio
Medina in favor of Bonifacio Natividad may be given effect notwithstanding the
fact that the portion of
The
trial court further ruled that prescription and laches did not set in. Since there was an express trust created
between Gorgonio Medina and Bonifacio Natividad, the action to compel the
defendants to convey the property to Bonifacio did not prescribe. It explained that it is only when the trustee
repudiates the trust that the prescriptive period of 10 years commences to
run. In the instant case, Gorgonio Medina
(trustee) repudiated the trust on
On
On
On
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the RTC,
Branch 33, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, dated
The appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court,
but ruled that the trust established between the parties was an implied or
constructive trust, and not an express trust.
It added that what should be conveyed to Bonifacio Natividad was only 1/3
of 270 square meters or 90 square meters, and not 1/3 of 371 square meters
since what was sold to him was only a part of one of the two portions owned by
Gorgonio Medina in the entire lot.
Finally, it declared that the contention that the Complaint should have
been dismissed for lack of cause of action, considering that the Special Power
of Attorney executed abroad by Bonifacio Natividad in favor of his son was not
properly authenticated before a consular officer, put a premium on
technicalities at the expense of substantial justice. Litigation, it said, should, as much as
possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicalities.
Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[30] which
the Court of Appeals denied in a resolution dated
Hence, the instant petition raising
the following issues:
WHETHER OR NOT THE
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT THAT THE TRIAL COURT APPROVED IN CIVIL CASE NO. 781-G
NOVATED THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE
WHETHER OR NOT BONIFACIO NATIVIDAD IS ESTOPPED BY LACHES.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
REGISTRATION OF
WHETHER OR NOT A
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST WAS CREATED BETWEEN GORGONIO
WHETHER OR NOT BONIFACIO NATIVIDAD’S CAUSE OF ACTION HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBED.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION.
Among
the issues raised by petitioners the last is what we shall first tackle. Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals
committed a very grave error in not finding that the respondent was without any
cause of action. Petitioners argue:
The
Complaint in this case was instituted by Philip M. Natividad in the name of
Bonifacio Natividad upon the strength of a Special Power of Attorney executed
by the latter in
The Revised Rules on Evidence require that a document acknowledged before a notary public being a public document, such record if kept in a foreign country, should be accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the custody thereof made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by an officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of his office. In the absence of the requisite certification and authentication of the public document, the same cannot be proved and, therefore, inadmissible as evidence.
Bonifacio Natividad’s Special Power of Attorney not having been duly certified and authenticated, it cannot be duly proved. It is, therefore, deemed as not having been executed for purposes of instituting an action on his behalf. Without any valid authority to institute the action on behalf of his father, Philip Natividad is deemed to have instituted it on his own. Philip Natividad not being a party to the Deed of Absolute Sale between Gorgonio Medina and Bonifacio Natividad, he is undoubtedly not the real party in interest because he does not have any material interest in the contract which is the source of Bonifacio Natividad’s cause of action. He does not stand to be benefited or injured by a judgment in the suit and neither is he entitled to the avails of the suit.
Not
being the real party in interest, and being deemed to have brought the action
on his own, Philip M. Natividad has no cause of action.[32]
The
trial court was convinced that Philip Natividad was authorized by his father
(Bonifacio) in this case by virtue of the special power of attorney that the
latter issued. The special power of
attorney, it claims, is a public document, the same having been notarized by a
notary public of the State of Washington, USA.
It said that there being no evidence showing that said document had been
falsified, the same was sufficient authority for Philip to represent his
father. The Court of Appeals considered
the fact that the special power of attorney was not properly authenticated
before a consular office to be a mere technicality and could not be the basis
for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action.
On his part, respondent said the
notarized special power of attorney which he appended to the complaint is a
public document. It carries with it the
presumption of regularity and any suspicion on the authenticity and due
execution thereof cannot stand against said presumption absent evidence which
is clear and convincing.
The question to be answered is: Is the Special Power of Attorney supposedly
authorizing Philip Natividad to file the instant case in behalf of his father
admissible in evidence?
In Lopez v. Court of Appeals,[33]
we have ruled that a special power of attorney executed in a foreign country is,
generally, not admissible in evidence as a public document in our courts. In said case, we said:
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
Section 25,[34] 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
From the foregoing provision, when the special power of attorney 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 special power of attorney 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 special power of attorney 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 Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals 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 special power of attorney 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the case under
consideration, the supposed special power of attorney involved was executed and
acknowledged before Phyllis Perry, a Notary Public of the State of Washington,
USA. This being the case, a
certification or authentication, as required by Section 25 (now Section 24),
Rules of Court, by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any other 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, is required. A notary public in a foreign country is not
one of those who can issue the required certificate.
The
records are bereft of evidence showing that there was compliance with Section
25 (now Section 24). Non-compliance
therewith will render the special power of attorney not admissible in
evidence. Not being duly established in
evidence, the special power of attorney cannot be used by Philip Natividad to
represent his father, Bonifacio Natividad, in this legal action against the
petitioners. It is thus clear that this
case was not filed by the real party-in-interest (Bonifacio) or by one duly
authorized by said party. Not being a
real party-in-interest and sans the authority to pursue the case, Philip
Natividad could not have validly commenced this case. The special power of attorney executed before
a notary public in a foreign country without the requirements mentioned in
Section 25 (now Section 24) of the Rules of Court cannot be admitted in
evidence before Philippine courts.
Both
lower courts and respondent’s contention that the lack of consular
authentication is a mere technicality that can be brushed aside in order to
uphold substantial justice, is untenable.
The failure to have the special power of attorney authenticated is not
merely a technicality -- it is a question of jurisdiction. In Lopez,
we pronounced that jurisdiction over the person of the real party-in-interest
was never acquired by the courts. As a
result, all proceedings in the lower courts were declared null and void ab initio and thus set aside.
In the case before us, the Regional
Trial Court and the Court of Appeals did not acquire jurisdiction over the
person of Bonifacio Natividad. Following
our pronouncement in Lopez, all
proceedings before these courts are voided and set aside. In light of this, we find no need to discuss
the other issues raised.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. All the proceedings
before the Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33 (Civil Case
No. 1165-G) and the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 82160) are hereby declared
void, and the case is hereby DISMISSED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third
Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe with Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Rosmari D. Carandang, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 104-114.
[2] Records, pp. 178-182.
[3] CA rollo, p. 138.
[4] See Sketch; records, p. 23.
[5] Records, pp. 9-10.
[6] Rollo, pp. 78-81.
[7]
[8]
[9] Records, p. 8.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Pre-Trial Order; Records, p. 145.
[24] Records, p. 182.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] CA rollo, p. 114.
[30]
[31]
[32] Rollo, pp. 47-49.
[33] G.R. No. 77008,
[34] Now Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Sec. 24. Proof of official record. – The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, 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 the 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.