*
G.R. No. 102737. August 21, 1996.
* SECOND DIVISION.
594
595
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.
Same; Same; Same; The right of an innocent purchaser for
value must be respected and protected, even if the seller obtained
his title through fraud.—Even granting for the sake of argument,
that the petitioner’s 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 Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of
Appeals, it was held, viz: “The right of an innocent purchaser for
value must be respected and protected, even if the seller obtained
his title through fraud. The remedy of the person prejudiced is to
bring an action for damages against those who caused or
employed the fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an action
against the Treasurer of the Philippines may be filed for recovery
of damages against the Assurance Fund.”
Same; Same; Same; Estoppel; Words and Phrases; The
principle of equitable estoppel states that where one or two
innocent persons must suffer a loss, he who by his conduct made
the loss possible must bear it.—Finally, the trial court did not err
in applying equitable estoppel in this case. The principle of
equitable estoppel states that where one or two innocent persons
must suffer a loss, he who by his conduct made the loss possible
must bear it.
_______________
597
7
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. Petitioner Veloso, therefore, prayed that a
temporary restraining order be issued to prevent the
transfer of the subject property; that the General Power of
Attorney, the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 180685 be annulled; and the subject
property be reconveyed to him.
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. She contended
that plaintiff (herein petitioner), had no cause of action
against her. In seeking for the declaration of nullity of the
documents, the real party in interest was Irma Veloso, the
wife of the plaintiff. She should have been impleaded in the
case. In fact, Plaintiff’s cause of action should have been
against his wife, Irma. Consequently, defendant Escario
prayed for the dismissal
8
of the complaint and the payment
to her of damages.
Pre-trial was conducted. The sole issue to be resolved by
the trial court was whether
9
or not there was a valid sale of
the subject property.
During the trial, plaintiff (herein petitioner) Francisco
Veloso testified that he acquired the subject property from
the Philippine Building Corporation, 10as evidenced by a
Deed of Sale dated October 1, 1957. He married Irma
Lazatin on
_______________
598
11
January 20, 1962. Hence, the property did not belong to
their conjugal partnership. Plaintiff further asserted that
he did not sign the power of attorney and as proof that his
signature was falsified, he presented Allied Bank Checks
Nos. 16634640, 16634641 and 16634643, which allegedly
bore his genuine signature.
Witness for the plaintiff Atty. Julian G. Tubig denied
any participation in the execution of the general power of
attorney. He attested that he did not sign thereon, and the
same was never entered in his Notarial Register on
November 29, 1985. 12
In the decision of the trial court dated March 9, 1990,
defendant Aglaloma Escario was adjudged the lawful
owner of the property as she was deemed an innocent
purchaser for value. The assailed general power of attorney
was held to be valid and sufficient for the purpose. 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. It also declared that plaintiff failed to
substantiate his allegation of fraud. The court also stressed
that plaintiff was not entirely blameless for although he
admitted to be the only person who had access to the title
and other important documents, his wife was still able to
possess the copy. Citing Section 55 of Act 496, the court
held that Irma’s possession and production of the
certificate of title was deemed a conclusive authority from
the plaintiff to the Register of Deeds to enter a new
certificate. Then applying the principle of equitable
estoppel, plaintiff was held to bear the loss for it was he
who made the wrong possible. Thus:
_______________
599
II
_______________
600
III
________________
601
_______________
602
________________
18 Bautista, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 106042, Feb. 28, 1994.
19 G.R. Nos. 54719-50, 17 January 1985.
603
“Besides, the records of this case disclosed that the plaintiff is not
entirely free from blame. He admitted that he is the sole person
who has access to TCT No. 49138 and other documents
appertaining thereto (TSN, May 23, 1989, pp. 7-12). However, the
fact remains that the Certificate of Title, as well as other
documents necessary for the transfer of title were in the
possession of plaintiff’s wife, Irma L. Veloso, consequently leaving
no doubt or any suspicion on the part of the defendant as to her
authority. Under Section 55 of Act 496, as amended, Irma’s
possession and production of the Certificate of Title to defendant
operated as “conclusive authority from 21the plaintiff to the
Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate.”
_______________
604
Petition denied.
——o0o——