Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Case Title G.R. No. Date: Facts

    Uploaded by

    bubuchokoy
    1) Petitioner Francisco Veloso owned a 177 square meter parcel of land in Manila registered under his name. However, in 1988, the title was cancelled and re-issued under the name of Aglaloma Escario, who claimed to have purchased the property. 2) Veloso filed a case claiming the sale was invalid as he did not authorize the sale. However, the sale was supported by a power of attorney issued by Veloso's wife to Escario. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the sale was valid, as the power of attorney appeared valid and regular on its face, and Escario had no reason to doubt the authority of Veloso's wife who held the property title. As a buyer

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Title G.R. No. Date: Facts

    Uploaded by

    bubuchokoy
    31 views2 pages
    1) Petitioner Francisco Veloso owned a 177 square meter parcel of land in Manila registered under his name. However, in 1988, the title was cancelled and re-issued under the name of Aglaloma Escario, who claimed to have purchased the property. 2) Veloso filed a case claiming the sale was invalid as he did not authorize the sale. However, the sale was supported by a power of attorney issued by Veloso's wife to Escario. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the sale was valid, as the power of attorney appeared valid and regular on its face, and Escario had no reason to doubt the authority of Veloso's wife who held the property title. As a buyer

    Original Description:

    30 Veloso vs CA

    Original Title

    30 Veloso vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Francisco Veloso owned a 177 square meter parcel of land in Manila registered under his name. However, in 1988, the title was cancelled and re-issued under the name of Aglaloma Escario, who claimed to have purchased the property. 2) Veloso filed a case claiming the sale was invalid as he did not authorize the sale. However, the sale was supported by a power of attorney issued by Veloso's wife to Escario. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the sale was valid, as the power of attorney appeared valid and regular on its face, and Escario had no reason to doubt the authority of Veloso's wife who held the property title. As a buyer

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views2 pages

    Case Title G.R. No. Date: Facts

    Uploaded by

    bubuchokoy
    1) Petitioner Francisco Veloso owned a 177 square meter parcel of land in Manila registered under his name. However, in 1988, the title was cancelled and re-issued under the name of Aglaloma Escario, who claimed to have purchased the property. 2) Veloso filed a case claiming the sale was invalid as he did not authorize the sale. However, the sale was supported by a power of attorney issued by Veloso's wife to Escario. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the sale was valid, as the power of attorney appeared valid and regular on its face, and Escario had no reason to doubt the authority of Veloso's wife who held the property title. As a buyer

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Case Title Veloso vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. G.R. No. 102737
    Date: August 21, 1996

    FACTS:
    Petitioner Francisco Veloso was the owner of a parcel of land situated in the district of
    Tondo, Manila, with an area of 177 square meters. The title was registered in the name
    of Francisco A. Veloso. The said title was subsequently cancelled and a new one issued
    in the name of Aglaloma B. Escario, married to Gregorio L. Escario, on May 24, 1988.

    On August 24, 1988, petitioner Veloso filed an action for annulment of documents,
    reconveyance of property with damages and preliminary injunction and/or restraining
    order. Petitioner alleged therein that he was the absolute owner of the subject property
    and he never authorized anybody, not even his wife, to sell it. He alleged that he was
    in possession of the title but when his wife, Irma, left for abroad, he found out that his
    copy was missing. He then verified with the Registry of Deeds of Manila and there he
    discovered that his title was already canceled in favor of defendant Aglaloma Escario.

    The transfer of property was supported by a General Power of Attorney dated


    November 29, 1985 and Deed of Absolute Sale, dated November 2, 1987, executed by
    Irma Veloso, wife of the petitioner and appearing as his attorney-in-fact, and defendant
    Aglaloma Escario.

    Petitioner Veloso, however, denied having executed the power of attorney and alleged
    that his signature was falsified. He also denied having seen or even known Rosemarie
    Reyes and Imelda Santos, the supposed witnesses in the execution of the power of
    attorney. He vehemently denied having met or transacted with the defendant. Thus,
    he contended that the sale of the property, and the subsequent transfer thereof, were
    null and void.

    Defendant Aglaloma Escario in her answer alleged that she was a buyer in good faith
    and denied any knowledge of the alleged irregularity. She allegedly relied on the
    general power of attorney of Irma Veloso which was sufficient in form and substance
    and was duly notarized.

    ISSUE:
    Whether there was a valid sale of the subject property

    HELD:
    Yes, the sale of the subject property is valid.

    The Supreme Court held that an examination of the records showed that the assailed
    power of attorney was valid and regular on its face. It was notarized and as such, it
    carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. While
    it is true that it was denominated as a general power of attorney, a perusal thereof
    revealed that it stated an authority to sell.

    Respondent Aglaloma relied on the power of attorney presented by petitioner's wife,


    Irma. Being the wife of the owner and having with her the title of the property, there
    was no reason for the private respondent not to believe, in her authority. Thus, having
    had no inkling on any irregularity and having no participation thereof, private
    respondent was a buyer in good faith. It has been consistently held that a purchaser in
    good faith is one who buys property of another, without notice that some other person
    has a right to, or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at
    the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other
    person in the property.

    You might also like