G.R. No. 193517 (2014)
Topics:
Forgery pf Special Power of Attorney, deed of sale executed by an agent through an SPA, innocent purchaser for value
Summary:
Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing CA Decision and Resolution that cancelled the TCT registered in the name of Victorino Sarili and reinstated the TCT in the name of Pedro Lagrosa.
Doctrines:
Contract of agency, agency to sell
Facts:
Pedro Lagrosa, through his attorney-in-fact, filed a complaint against Sps. Sarili and Register of Deed (RD) of Caloocan City alleging that he is the owner of a parcel of land in Caloocan. Lagrosa attests that he has been religiously paying the real estate taxes since he acquired said land. He alleged that he recently discovered that a new certificate of title was issued by RD in the name of Victorino and Isabel Sarili by virtue of a falsified deed of sale that was purportedly executed by Pedro and his wife. He averred that Sps. Sarili and the RD has employed fraud to acquire and regusted the subject property.
Meanwhile, Sps. Sarili maintained that they are innocent purchasers for value, since they purchased the property from Ramon Rodriguez who possessed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA).
The lower court found that Pedro’s signature in Ramon’s SPA is the same with the one in the SPA executed for his attorney-in-fact. Thus, the lower court found the sale valid and binding, and thus ruled in favor of Sps. Sarili.
Issue:
Whether the sale entered into by Victorino and Ramon was valid
Ruling:
No. Article 1874 of the Civil Code provides that “when a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void.”
The law also provides generally that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. However, a higher degree of prudence is required from one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land object of the transaction is registered. In such a case, the buyer is expected to examine not only the certificate of title but all factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of the transferor. The buyer also has the duty to ascertain the identity of the person with whom he is dealing and the latter’s legal authority to convey the property.
In this case, Sps. Sarili purchased the property from Ramon by the virtue of the SPA he presented. However, the Court found that the execution and authenticity of Ramon’s SPA were not duly established. The Court also found flaws such as the notarial acknowledgment failing to indicate the respondent’s community tax certificate (CTC) number. The irregularities and failure to properly authenticate the SPA show that Sps. Sarili failed to conduct an investigation as required by prevailing jurisprudence. Hence, Sps. Sarili cannot be considered as innocent purchasers for value.
Thus, the appellate court correctly found that Pedro was able to establish his claim as to forgery of the SPA. This renders the SPA invalid, and the sale in its virtue, therefore, void.