Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    FRANCISCO Veloso V CA

    Uploaded by

    Kim Laguardia
    Petitioner Francisco Veloso owned a parcel of land that was transferred to Aglaloma Escario based on a General Power of Attorney and Deed of Sale executed by Veloso's wife Irma. Veloso claimed the documents were invalid as he did not authorize the sale and his signature was forged. However, the general power of attorney explicitly authorized the attorney-in-fact to sell land. While labeled general, it specifically mentioned the power to sell, so no separate special power was needed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that Escario was a buyer in good faith protected by the notarized power of attorney, making her the lawful owner.

    Copyright:

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

    FRANCISCO Veloso V CA

    Uploaded by

    Kim Laguardia
    123 views1 page
    Petitioner Francisco Veloso owned a parcel of land that was transferred to Aglaloma Escario based on a General Power of Attorney and Deed of Sale executed by Veloso's wife Irma. Veloso claimed the documents were invalid as he did not authorize the sale and his signature was forged. However, the general power of attorney explicitly authorized the attorney-in-fact to sell land. While labeled general, it specifically mentioned the power to sell, so no separate special power was needed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that Escario was a buyer in good faith protected by the notarized power of attorney, making her the lawful owner.

    Original Description:

    special power of attorney

    Original Title

    FRANCISCO Veloso v 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?

    Petitioner Francisco Veloso owned a parcel of land that was transferred to Aglaloma Escario based on a General Power of Attorney and Deed of Sale executed by Veloso's wife Irma. Veloso claimed the documents were invalid as he did not authorize the sale and his signature was forged. However, the general power of attorney explicitly authorized the attorney-in-fact to sell land. While labeled general, it specifically mentioned the power to sell, so no separate special power was needed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that Escario was a buyer in good faith protected by the notarized power of attorney, making her the lawful owner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    123 views1 page

    FRANCISCO Veloso V CA

    Uploaded by

    Kim Laguardia
    Petitioner Francisco Veloso owned a parcel of land that was transferred to Aglaloma Escario based on a General Power of Attorney and Deed of Sale executed by Veloso's wife Irma. Veloso claimed the documents were invalid as he did not authorize the sale and his signature was forged. However, the general power of attorney explicitly authorized the attorney-in-fact to sell land. While labeled general, it specifically mentioned the power to sell, so no separate special power was needed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that Escario was a buyer in good faith protected by the notarized power of attorney, making her the lawful owner.

    Copyright:

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

    FRANCISCO A.

    VELOSO VS CA
    DOCTRINE:
    The special power of attorney can be included in the general power when it is specified therein the act or transaction for
    which the special power is required." Whether the instrument be denominated as "general power of attorney" or "special
    power of attorney," what matters is the extent of the power or powers contemplated upon the agent or attorney in fact.
    If the power is couched in general terms, then such power cannot go beyond acts of administration. However,
    where the power to sell is specific, it not being merely implied, much less couched in general terms, there
    cannot be any doubt that the attorney in fact may execute a valid sale. An instrument may be captioned as "special power
    of attorney" but if the powers granted are couched in general terms without mentioning any specific power to sell or
    mortgage or to do other specific acts of strict dominion, then in that case only acts of administration may be deemed
    conferred."

    FACTS:
    Petitioner Francisco Veloso owns a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila covered by a TCT issued by the Registry of Deeds-
    Manila. He acquired the subject property before he got married from Philippine Building Corporation. Hence,
    the property did not belong to the conjugal partnership.The said title was subsequently canceled and a new one was
    issued in the name of Aglaloma B. Escario. Subsequently, petitioner filed an action for annulment of documents,
    reconveyance of property with damages and preliminary injunction alleging that he was the absolute owner of the
    subject property and he never authorized anybody to sell it. He alleged that when his wife left for abroad, he found out
    that his copy was missing.

    The transfer of property was supported by a General Power of Attorney and Deed of Absolute Sale , executed by Irma
    Veloso, wife of the petitioner. Petitioner denied executing the power of attorney and alleged that his signature was
    falsified. He also denied having known the supposed witnesses in the execution of the power of attorney.
    Thus, he contended that the sale of the property, and the subsequent transfer were null and void.
    Defendant Aglaloma Escario 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 which was sufficient in form and substance and was
    duly notarized.
    Witness for the plaintiff Atty. Julian G. Tubig denied any participation in the execution of the general power of attorney,
    and attested that he did not sign.
    RTC ruled in favor of Escaro as the lawful owner of the property as she was deemed an innocent purchaser for value.
    The trial court ruled that there was no need for a special power of attorney when the special power was
    already mentioned in the general one
    CA affirmed in toto the findings of the trial court.

    ISSUE:
    Was the General Power of Attorney valid?

    HELD:
    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."
    2. To buy or sell, hire or lease, mortgage or otherwise hypothecate lands, tenements and hereditaments .
    "Thus, there was no need to execute a separate and special power of attorney since the general power of attorney had
    expressly authorized the agent or attorney in fact the power to sell the subject property. The general power of attorney
    was accepted by the Register of Deeds when the title to the subject property was canceled and transferred in the name
    of Private Respondent.

    You might also like