Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Heirs of Sarili vs. Lagrosa

    Uploaded by

    Hamlet Pahm II
    The Supreme Court ruled that the conveyance of the subject property to Sps. Sarili was not valid. While Sps. Sarili claimed they were innocent purchasers who bought the property from Ramon Rodriguez based on a special power of attorney, the special power of attorney presented flaws by not indicating Rodriguez's community tax certificate number. Sps. Sarili also failed to show they investigated beyond just examining the power of attorney document and into the circumstances of its execution. Therefore, Sps. Sarili could not be considered innocent purchasers for value of the property.

    Copyright:

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

    Heirs of Sarili vs. Lagrosa

    Uploaded by

    Hamlet Pahm II
    33 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the conveyance of the subject property to Sps. Sarili was not valid. While Sps. Sarili claimed they were innocent purchasers who bought the property from Ramon Rodriguez based on a special power of attorney, the special power of attorney presented flaws by not indicating Rodriguez's community tax certificate number. Sps. Sarili also failed to show they investigated beyond just examining the power of attorney document and into the circumstances of its execution. Therefore, Sps. Sarili could not be considered innocent purchasers for value of the property.

    Original Title

    8. Heirs of Sarili vs. Lagrosa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the conveyance of the subject property to Sps. Sarili was not valid. While Sps. Sarili claimed they were innocent purchasers who bought the property from Ramon Rodriguez based on a special power of attorney, the special power of attorney presented flaws by not indicating Rodriguez's community tax certificate number. Sps. Sarili also failed to show they investigated beyond just examining the power of attorney document and into the circumstances of its execution. Therefore, Sps. Sarili could not be considered innocent purchasers for value of the property.

    Copyright:

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

    Heirs of Sarili vs. Lagrosa

    Uploaded by

    Hamlet Pahm II
    The Supreme Court ruled that the conveyance of the subject property to Sps. Sarili was not valid. While Sps. Sarili claimed they were innocent purchasers who bought the property from Ramon Rodriguez based on a special power of attorney, the special power of attorney presented flaws by not indicating Rodriguez's community tax certificate number. Sps. Sarili also failed to show they investigated beyond just examining the power of attorney document and into the circumstances of its execution. Therefore, Sps. Sarili could not be considered innocent purchasers for value of the property.

    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 1

    Heirs of Sarili vs.

    Lagrosa

    FACTS:

    Respondent, represented by his attorney-in-fact Lourdes Labios Mojica (Lourdes) via a


    special power of attorney filed a complaint  against Sps. Sarili and the Register of Deeds
    8

    of Caloocan City (RD) before the RTC, alleging, among others, that he is the owner of a
    certain parcel of land situated in Caloocan City and has been religiously paying the real
    estate taxes therefor since its acquisition. Respondent claimed that he is a resident of
    California, USA, and that during his vacation in the Philippines, he discovered that a new
    certificate of title to the subject property was issued by the RD in the name of Victorino
    married to Isabel Amparo, by virtue of a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly
    executed by him and his wife, Amelia U. Lagrosa (Amelia). He averred that the
    falsification of the said deed of sale was a result of the fraudulent, illegal, and malicious
    acts committed by Sps. Sarili and the RD in order to acquire the subject property and, as
    such, prayed for the annulment of TCT , and that Sps. Sarili deliver to him the possession
    of the subject property, or, in the alternative, that Sps. Sarili and the RD jointly and
    severally pay him the amount of ₱1,000,000.00, including moral damages as well as
    attorney’s fees.

    In their answer, Sps. Sarili maintained that they are innocent purchasers for value, having
    purchased the subject property from Ramon B. Rodriguez (Ramon), who possessed and
    presented a Special Power of Attorney  (subject SPA) to sell/dispose of the same, and, in
    12

    such capacity, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the said property in their
    favor.

    ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid conveyance of the subject property to
    Sps. Sarili.

    RULING: The petition lacks merit.

    The strength of the buyer’s inquiry on the seller’s capacity or legal authority to sell
    depends on the proof of capacity of the seller. If the proof of capacity consists of a
    special power of attorney duly notarized, mere inspection of the face of such public
    document already constitutes sufficient inquiry. If no such special power of attorney is
    provided or there is one but there appears to be flaws in its notarial acknowledgment,
    mere inspection of the document will not do; the buyer must show that his investigation
    went beyond the document and into the circumstances of its execution.

    In the present case, it is undisputed that Sps. Sarili purchased the subject property from
    Ramos on the strength of the latter’s ostensible authority to sell under the subject SPA.
    The said document, however, readily indicates flaws in its notarial acknowledgment since
    the respondent’s community tax certificate (CTC) number was not indicated thereon.
    Under the governing rule on notarial acknowledgments at that time,38 i.e., Section 163(a)
    of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991,"
    when an individual subject to the community tax acknowledges any document before a
    notary public, it shall be the duty of the administering officer to require such individual to
    exhibit the community tax certificate.39 Despite this irregularity, however, Sps. Sarili
    failed to show that they conducted an investigation beyond the subject SPA and into the
    circumstances of its execution as required by prevailing jurisprudence. Hence, Sps. Sarili
    cannot be considered as innocent purchasers for value.

    You might also like