Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MONTAYRE, PETITIONERS
V.
EMILIANO M. ONGJOCO, RESPONDENT
GR No. 173312 August 26, 2008
Chico-Nazario, J.
SV: 2 groups of lots were sold to Ongjoco by Jose. In one group of lots, it was
claimed by the seller (Jose Olaguer) that he had the power of attorney to sell the
lots. On the second group of lots, there was evidence that Jose had a general power
of attorney to sell the 2nd group of lots.
SC: as for the first group, the Ongjoco was a purchaser in bad faith since though he
claimed that Jose had a power of attorney, he failed to produce it in court. However
for the second group of lots, there was a general power of attorney which
authorized him to sell the lot. Although normally, a general power of attorney is not
enough to authorize a sale of land, the general power specifically stated that Jose
was authorized to sell the lots which in this case was sufficient.
As for the sale of Lots 1 and 2, Ongjoco was a purchaser in bad faith
o The purported power of attorney was never presented to the trial
court. Ongjoco wasnt able to explain this omission. Other than the self-
serving statement, no evidence was offered to prove the alleged
written power of attorney.
o There is not written power of attorney to speak of
As for Lots 76-D to G, Ongjoco was able to present a general power of
attorney that was executed by Virgilio Olaguer.
o While the law requires a special power of attorney , the general
power of attorney was sufficient in this case as Jose was expressly
empowered to sell any of Virgilios properties and to sign, execute,
acknowledge and deliver any agreement therefor.
o Even if a document is designated as a general power of attorney, the
requirement of a special power of attorney is met if there is a clear
mandate from the principal specifically authorizing the performance of
the act
o The SPA can be included in the General Power when the act or
transaction for which the special power is required is specified therein.
o The written power of attorney contained the signature of Virgilio and
was duly notarized. As a public document it enjoys presumption of
authenticity and due execution which can only be contradicted by clear
and convincing evidence which was absent in this case.
The fact that the lots were sold to Ongjoco twice does not warrant the
conclusion that he was a buyer in bad faith. It does not indicate that
respondent knew of any defect in the title of the owner of the property
Justin Benedict A. Moreto (facts adapted from a digest found in the internet)