MLP Notarial Services

Nagpasya ang na awtomatikong natatapos ang bisa ng isang Special Power of Attorney sa pagkamatay ng taong nagbigay nito. Anumang hakbang na gagawin ng kinatawan matapos ang pagkamatay ng principal ay walang bisa, maliban kung sakop ng mga exception sa ilalim ng batas.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, sinabi ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na nawalan ng awtoridad si Jessica Alova Uberas (Jessica) na kumilos sa ngalan ng kanyang amang si Meliton Alova (Meliton), dahil natapos na ang bisa ng SPA sa pagkamatay ni Meliton noong 1998.

Taong 1998 nang nagpagawa si Meliton ng isang SPA pabor sa anak na si Jessica kaugnay ng ari-arian nilang mag-asawa. Namatay siya sa huling bahagi ng parehong taon. Sa kabila nito, ginamit ni Jessica ang SPA noong 2003 para makakuha ng loan mula sa San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) sa pamamagitan ng pagsangla sa ari-arian ng kanyang yumaong ama. Nabigong bayaran ni Jessia ang loan at na-foreclose ang ari-arian kung saan ang SMFI ang nanalong bidder.

Nagsampa ng kaso upang mapawalang-bisa ang mortgage at foreclosure sale sina Felicidad Alova at Decelyn Alova Pution, ang balo at iba pang anak ni Meliton.

Parehong nagpasya ang Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Court of Appeals (CA) na natapos ang bisa ng SPA sa pagkamatay ni Meliton. Gayunman, sinabi ng RTC na dahil may pagsang-ayon sa SPA ang asawa ni Meliton na si Felicidad, may bisa ang sangla sa kanyang kalahating bahagi ng conjugal property. Sa kabilang banda, idineklara ng CA na walang bisa ang mortgage dahil hindi ito isinagawa sa ngalan ng mag-asawang Meliton at Felicidad.

Umapela ang SMFI sa Korte Suprema na bahagyang nagpasya pabor dito nang itinaguyod ang pagwawakas ng ahensiya pero binigyang-bisa ang mortgage at foreclosure sale kaugnay sa bahagi ni Jessica sa ari-arian.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, sa ilalim ng SPA na isang kontrata ng ahensiya, pinahihintulutan ng principal ang isang ahente na kumilos sa ngalan niya sa mga transaksiyon kaugnay ng ibang partido. Ang ahensiya ay personal, kinatawan, at hinango, at nagtatapos ito sa pagkamatay ng alinman sa prinsipal o ahente.

Walang bisa ang anumang aksiyon ng ahente pagkatapos mamatay ang prinsipal maliban kung napapailalim ito sa dalawang exception sa Civil Code: (1) kapag ang ahensiya ay para sa karaniwang interes ng mga partido, at (2) kapag ang ahente, na hindi batid ang pagkamatay o pagtatapos ng ahensiya, ay nakipagkontrata sa isang ikatlong partido nang may good faith.

Sa kasong ito, walang pagpapakita na naaangkop ang mga exception na ito. Ganap na alam ni Jessica ang pagkamatay ng kanyang ama at hindi ginawa ang SPA para sa benepisyo nilang dalawa.

Iginiit ng Korte Suprema na para maitali ang principal sa aksiyon ng isang ahente, dapat malinaw ang kasulatan na ginawa, pinirmahan, at sinelyuhan sa pangalan ng principal. Dito, nilagdaan ang mortgage ni Jessica sa kanyang personal na kapasidad bagama't inilarawan siya nito bilang attorney-in-fact ni Meliton.

Hindi rin nakasaad bilang principal sa ilalim ng SPA ang asawa ni Meliton na si Felicidad.

Gayunman, nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na hindi ganap na walang bisa ang mortgage at foreclosure sale. Awtomatikong naging co-owner ng property si Jessica pagkatapos ng pagkamatay ng kanyang ama. Noong pinirmahan niya ang mortgage, inilagay niya ang kanyang bahagi sa ari-arian upang matiyak ang kanyang obligasyon sa SMFI. Samakatuwid, may bisa lamang ang mortgage at foreclosure sale para sa bahagi ni Jessica sa ari-arian.

Ibinalik ng Korte Suprema ang kaso sa RTC para matukoy ang bahagi ni Jessica sa nasabing pag-aari at i-annotate ang mga bahagi ng iba pang tagapagmana ni Meliton, at ng SMFI na nakakuha ng interes ni Jessica.

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/27t9k6vy.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://t.co/hNAbdz5jd0.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

The invalidated a sale of two parcels of land because the buyer knew that the seller was not the real owner.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division cancelled the sale made by Bayani S. Cerilla (Cerilla) to Edward C. Ciacho (Ciacho). The SC found that Ciacho knew the sold properties did not belong to Cerilla.

The properties were inherited by Adolfo De Guia which were about to be foreclosed due to unpaid debt. De Guia asked Cerilla to pay off the mortgage. They signed a deed of sale, and land titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.

After a few months, another agreement was signed to re-sell the properties to De Guia. The latter filed adverse claim on the titles.

Cerilla and De Guia entered into a subsequent agreement where Cerilla would buy the properties for PHP 15 Million but only after De Guia ejects the illegal settlers from the properties.

As De Guia failed to remove the illegal settlers, Cerilla had to undertake the same but was not successful in doing so. As a result, Cerilla incurred expenses for ejectment which caused him to obtain a loan from a bank and from Ciacho.

Ciacho agreed to lend Cerilla with the properties as collateral. Because Cerilla could not pay the loan, Ciacho asked him to sign a deed of sale on the properties but with a request from Cerilla not to register the same.

De Guia learned that Ciacho registered the properties under his name. Thus, he filed a case with the RTC to invalidate the sale. After finding in favor of De Guia, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Both RTC and CA found that Cerilla had no authority to sell the properties as he was just a mere “accommodation party” to avoid foreclosure of the properties but was not the real owner.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA finding that there was no real intention to transfer ownership from De Guia to Cerilla. Even after the land titles were transferred under his name, Cerilla did not act as if he owned the lands.

Under the Civil Code, for a sale to be valid, the parties must agree to the sale. The parties’ actions during and after the agreement can serve as basis to determine their intent. The seller must also be the owner of the property or has authority to sell.

Here, the re-sale of the properties from Cerilla to De Guia within a short period of time coupled with the fact that Cerilla asked Ciacho not to register the properties under his name, indicate that there was no intention on the part of De Guia to transfer ownership of the properties.

The Court added that Ciacho cannot claim to be an innocent buyer because he was aware of facts that should have raised doubts about Cerilla’s ownership. He knew of the earlier sale between De Guia and Cerilla and the former’s claim as annotated on the titles.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-no-valid-sale-if-buyer-knows-seller-is-not-true-owner/

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-edward-c-ciacho-vs-spouses-adolfo-t-de-guia-and-fe-alma-v-de-guia-et-al/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259051-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲?

Here's a quick guide to help you understand how the land title is officially transferred to the new owner after a sale.

Ensure a safe transaction by conducting due diligence. Request for a Certified True Copy of the land title from the nearest Registry of Deeds or online via the LRA eSerbisyo Portal: https://eserbisyo.lra.gov.ph/

Estate Settlement in the Philippines

When a person passes away, their properties and assets must be legally transferred to
his heirs through Estate Settlement.

This process involves identifying all assets, settling estate taxes, and choosing the
appropriate method of settlement—Judicial, Extra-Judicial, or Self-Adjudication.

Secure important documents like Certified True Copies (CTC) through the LRA
eSerbisyo Portal https://eserbisyo.lra.gov.ph/

NOTARIZATION REMINDERS

Prior to your visit, kindly send us a message to inform us about the document(s) you wish to have notarized and to confirm our availability.

Requirements for notarization:

✅ Valid Government-Issued ID — Must be unexpired
✅ Original Document(s)
✅ Personal Appearance — You must appear in person
✅ Additional Copies — Please bring at least five (3) copies (we will retain copies for our records)
✅ Informed Consent — Ensure you have read and fully understood the document before signing

We look forward to assisting you.

MLP Notarial SERVICES _NOTARY PUBLIC

Contact Us

(TNT) 0970 995 4703
✉️ [email protected]
📍 Blk 11A, Lot 52, Sampaguita St., Gardenville Subdivision, Pag-asa 2, Imus, Cavite

ANNOUNCEMENT

We are pleased to announce the formal opening of MLP Notarial Services on May 2, 2025.

We look forward to serving your notarial needs with professionalism, integrity, and dedication.

For inquiries and appointments, please feel free to contact us.

MLP Notarial Services - NOTARY PUBLIC
09709954703
[email protected]
Blk 11A, Lot 52 Sampaguita St Gardenville Subdivision, Pag Asa 2, Imus Cavite