Veloso vs CA

August 21, 1996 | Torres, Jr., J. Did the CA err in not finding the forgery of the power of attorney had been
● Petitioner Francisco Veloso owned a parcel of land in Tondo. The title of adequately proven? - NO
such land was registered in the name of Francisco Veloso, on October 4, An examination of the records showed that the assailed power of attorney was valid
1957. Such title was canceled and a new one was issued in the name of and regular on its face. It was notarized and as such, it carries the evidentiary weight
Aglaloma Escario, who was married to Gregorio Veloso on May 24, 1988. conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. While it is true that it was
● Petitioner filed an action for annulment of documents, reconveyance of denominated as a general power of attorney, a perusal thereof revealed that it stated
property with damages and preliminary injunction and/or restraining order. an authority to sell, to wit:
He alleged in his complaint that: 2. To buy or sell, hire or lease, mortgage or otherwise hypothecate lands,
○ he was the absolute owner of the subject property and he never tenements and hereditaments or other forms of real property, more specifically TCT
authorized anybody, not even his wife, to sell it. No. 49138, upon such terms and conditions and under such covenants as my said
○ He was in possession of the title but when his wife left for abroad, attorney shall deem fit and proper.
he found out that his copy was missing. Thus, there was no need to execute a separate and special power of attorney since
○ He then verified with the Registry of Deed of Manila and there he the general power of attorney had expressly authorized the agent or attorney in fact
discovered that his title was already cancelled in favor of Aglaloma the power to sell the subject property. The special power of attorney can be included
Escario in the general power when it is specified therein the act or transaction for which the
○ The transfer of property was supported by a General Power of special power is required.
Attorney and a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Irma Veloso to The general power of attorney was accepted by the Register of Deeds when the title
Aglaloma Escario. to the subject property was canceled and transferred in the name of private
○ Petitioner denied that he ever executed the power of attorney and respondent. In LRC Consulta No. 123, Register of Deeds of Albay, Nov. 10, 1956, it
alleged that his signature was falsified stated that:
○ He prayed that a TRO be issued to prevent the transfer of the Whether the instrument be denominated as general power of attorney or special
subject property and that the General Power of Attorney, the Deed power of attorney, what matters is the extent of the power or powers contemplated
of Absolute Sale and the TCT registered with Escario’s name be upon the agent or attorney in fact. If the power is couched in general terms, then such
annulled and the subject property be reconveyed to him. power cannot go beyond acts of administration.However, where the power to sell is
● Defendant Escario answered that: specific, it not being merely implied, much less couched in general terms, there can
○ She was a buyer in good faith and denied any knowledge of any not be any doubt that the attorney in fact may execute a valid sale. An instrument
irregularity. may be captioned as special power of attorney but if the powers granted are couched
● The sole issue to be resolved by the trial court was whether there was a in general terms without mentioning any specific power to sell or mortgage or to do
valid sale of the subject property. other specific acts of strict dominion, then in that case only acts of administration may
● During the trial, Veloso testified that he acquired the property from Philippine be deemed conferred.
Building Corporation which was evidenced by a Deed of Sale on 1957. He Petitioner contends that his signature on the power of attorney was falsified. He also
married his wife on 1962. Hence, the property did not belong to their alleges that the same was not duly notarized for as testified by Atty. Tubig himself, he
conjugal partnership. He further asserted that he did not sign the power of did not sign thereon nor was it ever recorded in his notarial register. To bolster his
attorney and as proof that it was falsified, he presented Allied Bank checks argument, petitioner had presented checks, marriage certificate and his residence
which allegedly bore his genuine signature, certificate to prove his alleged genuine signature which when compared to the
● TC decided that Escario was the rightful owner of the property as he as signature in the power of attorney, showed some difference.
deemed an innocent purchaser for value. We found, however, that the basis presented by the petitioner was inadequate to
● CA affirmed sustain his allegation of forgery. Mere variance of the signatures cannot be
considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged. Forgery cannot be The right of an innocent purchaser for value must be respected and
presumed. Petitioner, however, failed to prove his allegation and simply relied on the protected, even if the seller obtained his title through fraud. The remedy of the person
apparent difference of the signatures. His denial had not established that the prejudiced is to bring an action for damages against those who caused or employed
signature on the power of attorney was not his. the fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an action against the Treasurer of the
We agree with the conclusion of the lower court that private respondent was an Philippines may be filed for recovery of damages against the Assurance Fund.
innocent purchaser for value. Respondent Aglaloma relied on the power of attorney
presented by petitioners wife, Irma. Being the wife of the owner and having with her Did the CA err in affirming the decision of the TC which misapplied the
the title of the property, there was no reason for the private respondent not to believe principle of equitable estoppel since the petitioner did not fail in is duty of
in her authority. Moreover, the power of attorney was notarized and as such, carried observing due diligence in the safekeeping of the title to the property? - NO
with it the presumption of its due execution. Thus, having had no inkling on any
irregularity and having no participation thereof, private respondent was a buyer in Finally, the trial court did not err in applying equitable estoppel in this case. The
good faith. It has been consistently held that a purchaser in good faith is one who principle of equitable estoppel states that where one or two innocent persons must
buys property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or suffer a loss, he who by his conduct made the loss possible must bear it. From the
interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of evidence adduced, it should be the petitioner who should bear the loss. As the court
such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person a quo found:
in the property. Besides, the records of this case disclosed that the plaintiff is not entirely
Documents acknowledged before a notary public have the evidentiary weight with free from blame. He admitted that he is the sole person who has access to TCT No.
respect to their due execution. The questioned power of attorney and deed of sale, 49138 and other documents appertaining thereto (TSN, May 23, 1989, pp. 7-12).
were notarized and therefore, presumed to be valid and duly executed. Atty. Tubig However, the fact remains that the Certificate of Title, as well as other documents
denied having notarized the said documents and alleged that his signature had also necessary for the transfer of title were in the possession of plaintiffs wife, Irma L.
been falsified. He presented samples of his signature to prove his contention. Forgery Veloso, consequently leaving no doubt or any suspicion on the part of the defendant
should be proved by clear and convincing evidence and whoever alleges it has the as to her authority. Under Section 55 of Act 496, as amended, Irmas possession and
burden of proving the same.Just like the petitioner, witness Atty. Tubig merely pointed production of the Certificate of Title to defendant operated as conclusive authority
out that his signature was different from that in the power of attorney and deed of from the plaintiff to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate.
sale. There had never been an accurate examination of the signature, even that of
the petitioner. To determine forgery, it was held in Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan: Petition denied.
The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of
the extent, kind, and significance of this resemblance as well as of the variation. It
then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of
a different personality, or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the
genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the
resemblance is the result of a more or less skillful imitation, or is the habitual and
characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these
two questions are correctly answered the whole problem of identification is solved.

Even granting for the sake of argument, that the petitioners signature was falsified
and consequently, the power of attorney and the deed of sale were null and void,
such fact would not revoke the title subsequently issued in favor of private respondent
Aglaloma. In the case of Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of Appeals, it was held, viz.: