LEGAL FORMS JANUARY 28 ASSIGNMENT Page 1 of 10

I. NEW NOTARIAL RULES AND PRACTICES

a. A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC

i. SECTIONS 1-6, 12. RULE 2 -> RULE II - DEFINITIONS

 SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - “Acknowledgment” refers to an act in which an individual on a

single occasion:

(a)  appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument
or document; 

(b)  is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and - 

(c)  represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was
voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that
he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he
acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.

SEC. 2. Affirmation or Oath. - The term “Affirmation” or “Oath” refers to an act in which an
individual on a single occasion: 

(a)  appears in person before the notary public;

(b)  is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and 
(c)  avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or document.

SEC. 3. Commission. - “Commission” refers to the grant of authority to perform notarial acts and
to the written evidence of the authority.

SEC. 4. Copy Certification. - “Copy Certification” refers to a notarial act in which a notary public:

(a)  is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a vital record, a public record,
nor publicly recordable; 
(b)  copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document; 
(c)  compares the instrument or document with the copy; and 
(d)  determines that the copy is accurate and complete.

SEC. 5. Notarial Register. - “Notarial Register” refers to a permanently bound book with
numbered pages containing a chronological record of notarial acts performed by a notary
public. 

SEC. 6. Jurat. -  “Jurat” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

LEGAL FORMS JANUARY 28 ASSIGNMENT Page 2 of 10

(a)  appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; 
(b)  is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
(c)  signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and 
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.

SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase “competent evidence of identity” refers
to the identification of an individual based on:

(a)  at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual; or
(b)  the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or
transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the
individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or
transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public
documentary identification.

ii. SECTIONS 2 & 5. RULE 3 -> RULE III - COMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLIC

 SEC. 2. Form of the Petition and Supporting Documents. - Every petition for a notarial
commission shall be in writing, verified, and shall include the following:

(a)  a statement containing the petitioner's personal qualifications, including the petitioner's date
of birth, residence, telephone number, professional tax receipt, roll of attorney's number and IBP
membership number;  
   
(b)  certification of good moral character of the petitioner by at least two (2) executive officers of
the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines where he is applying for commission; 
      
(c)  proof of payment for the filing of the petition as required by these Rules; and 
   
(d)  three (3) passport-size color photographs with light background taken within thirty (30) days
of the application. The photograph should not be retouched. The petitioner shall sign his name
at the bottom part of the photographs.

SEC. 5. Notice of Summary Hearing. - 

(a)  The notice of summary hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
the city or province where the hearing shall be conducted and posted in a conspicuous place in
LEGAL FORMS JANUARY 28 ASSIGNMENT Page 3 of 10

the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court. The cost of the publication shall be
borne by the petitioner. The notice may include more than one petitioner. 
    
(b)  The notice shall be substantially in the following form:

NOTICE OF HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a summary hearing on the petition for notarial commission of (name
of petitioner) shall be held on (date) at (place) at (time). Any person who has any cause or
reason to object to the grant of the petition may file a verified written opposition thereto,
received by the undersigned before the date of the summary hearing.

_____________________ 
Executive Judge

iii. SECTIONS 1-5. RULE 4 -> RULE IV - POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLIC

 SECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts:

(1) acknowledgments; 
(2) oaths and affirmations; 
(3) jurats; 
(4) signature witnessings; 
(5) copy certifications; and 
(6) any other act authorized by these Rules.

(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on
an instrument or document presented for notarization if:

(1)  the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two (2)
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document; 
(2)  both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark; 
(3)  the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by
(name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and
undersigned notary public"; and
(4)  the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an
acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.

(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or
make a mark on an instrument or document if:
LEGAL FORMS JANUARY 28 ASSIGNMENT Page 4 of 10

(1)  the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his
behalf; 
(2)  the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and
unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document; 
(3)  both witnesses sign their own names; 
(4)  the notary public writes below his signature: “Signature affixed by notary in presence of
(names and addresses of person and two [2] witnesses)”; and 
(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.

SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular
place of work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or
situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites
located within his territorial jurisdiction:

(1)  public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office may be
administered; 
(2)  public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or
documents requiring notarization; 
(3)  hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is
confined for treatment; and 
(4)  any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under
detention.

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument
or document -

(1)  is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and 
(2)  is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

(a)  is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized; 

(b)  will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title,
interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law;
or 
(c)  is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or
consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.

SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any notarial act described in
these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee
specified by these Rules if:
LEGAL FORMS JANUARY 28 ASSIGNMENT Page 5 of 10

(a)  the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is
unlawful or immoral; 
(b)  the signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind of the notary public
reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of the consequences of the transaction requiring
a notarial act; and 
(c)  in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will.

SEC. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A notary public shall not: 

(a)  execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false. 
(b)  affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete. 

iv. SECTIONS 1-4, RULE 7 -> RULE VII - SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC

SECTION 1. Official Signature. – In notarizing a paper instrument or document, a notary public

shall:

(a) sign by hand on the notarial certificate only the name indicated and as appearing on the
notary's commission;
(b) not sign using a facsimile stamp or printing device; and 
(c) affix his official signature only at the time the notarial act is performed.

SEC. 2. Official Seal. - (a) Every person commissioned as notary public shall have a seal of
office, to be procured at his own expense, which shall not be possessed or owned by any other
person. It shall be of metal, circular in shape, two inches in diameter, and shall have the name
of the city or province and the word “Philippines” and his own name on the margin and the roll of
attorney's number on the face thereof, with the words "notary public" across the center. A mark,
image or impression of such seal shall be made directly on the paper or parchment on which the
writing appears.

(b) The official seal shall be affixed only at the time the notarial act is performed and shall be
clearly impressed by the notary public on every page of the instrument or document notarized.

(c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only
to the notary public or the person duly authorized by him.

(d) Within five (5) days after the official seal of a notary public is stolen, lost, damaged or other
otherwise rendered unserviceable in affixing a legible image, the notary public, after informing
the appropriate law enforcement agency, shall notify the Executive Judge in writing, providing
proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail, and in the event of a crime
committed, provide a copy or entry number of the appropriate police record. Upon receipt of
LEGAL FORMS JANUARY 28 ASSIGNMENT Page 6 of 10

such notice, if found in order by the Executive Judge, the latter shall order the notary public to
cause notice of such loss or damage to be published, once a week for three (3) consecutive
weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the notary public is
commissioned. Thereafter, the Executive Judge shall issue to the notary public a new Certificate
of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal.

(e) Within five (5) days after the death or resignation of the notary public, or the revocation or
expiration of a notarial commission, the official seal shall be surrendered to the Executive Judge
and shall be destroyed or defaced in public during office hours. In the event that the missing,
lost or damaged seal is later found or surrendered, it shall be delivered by the notary public to
the Executive Judge to be disposed of in accordance with this section. Failure to effect such
surrender shall constitute contempt of court. In the event of death of the notary public, the
person in possession of the official seal shall have the duty to surrender it to the Executive
Judge.

SEC. 3. Seal Image. - The notary public shall affix a single, clear, legible, permanent, and
photographically reproducible mark, image or impression of the official seal beside his signature
on the notarial certificate of a paper instrument or document.

SEC. 4. Obtaining and Providing Seal. - (a) A vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals may not
sell said product without a written authorization from the Executive Judge.

(b) Upon written application and after payment of the application fee, the Executive Judge may
issue an authorization to sell to a vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals after verification and
investigation of the latter's qualifications. The Executive Judge shall charge an authorization fee
in the amount of PhP 4,000 for the vendor and PhP 8,000 for the manufacturer. If a
manufacturer is also a vendor, he shall only pay the manufacturer's authorization fee.

(c) The authorization shall be in effect for a period of four (4) years from the date of its issuance
and may be renewed by the Executive Judge for a similar period upon payment of the
authorization fee mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

(d) A vendor or manufacturer shall not sell a seal to a buyer except upon submission of a
certified copy of the commission and the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal
issued by the Executive Judge. A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of
name shall present to the vendor or manufacturer a certified copy of the Confirmation of the
Change of Name issued by the Executive Judge.

(e) Only one seal may be sold by a vendor or manufacturer for each Certificate of Authorization
to Purchase a Notarial Seal.

(f) After the sale, the vendor or manufacturer shall affix a mark, image or impression of the seal
to the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal and submit the completed
LEGAL FORMS JANUARY 28 ASSIGNMENT Page 7 of 10

Certificate to the Executive Judge. Copies of the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a

Notarial Seal and the buyer's commission shall be kept in the files of the vendor or manufacturer
for four (4) years after the sale.

(g) A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall present to the
vendor a certified copy of the order confirming the change of name issued by the Executive
Judge.

v. SECTION 1, RULE 12 -> RULE XII - SPECIAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. Punishable Acts. - The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person
who:

(a) knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public;

(b) knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial register, or official
records of a notary public; and 
(c) knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary public to commit official
misconduct.

b. FORMS USUALLY ATTACHED TO LEGAL DOCUMENTS

i. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - individual, multi-party, for and in behalf of a corporation, by and
individual and a corporation

c. COMMON AFFIDAVITS
i. AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS
ii. AFFIDAVIT OF SUPPORT
iii. AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE 
iv. AFFIDAVIT OF RECONCILIATION OF BIRTH DATA
v. AFFIDAVIT OF DISCREPANCY
vi. WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM
vii. JOINT AFFIDAVIT
viii. PROMISSORY NOTE

II. POWER OF ATTORNEY

a. RELATED LAWS:
i. ARTICLES 1868-1883, NEW CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES -> Art. 1868. By the contract
of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or
on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. (1709a)
LEGAL FORMS JANUARY 28 ASSIGNMENT Page 8 of 10

Art. 1869. Agency may be express, or implied from the acts of the principal, from his silence or
lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting on
his behalf without authority.

Agency may be oral, unless the law requires a specific form. (1710a)

Art. 1870. Acceptance by the agent may also be express, or implied from his acts which carry
out the agency, or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances. (n)

Art. 1871. Between persons who are present, the acceptance of the agency may also be implied
if the principal delivers his power of attorney to the agent and the latter receives it without any
objection. (n)

Art. 1872. Between persons who are absent, the acceptance of the agency cannot be implied
from the silence of the agent, except:

(1) When the principal transmits his power of attorney to the agent, who receives it without any
objection;

(2) When the principal entrusts to him by letter or telegram a power of attorney with respect to
the business in which he is habitually engaged as an agent, and he did not reply to the letter or
telegram. (n)

Art. 1873. If a person specially informs another or states by public advertisement that he has
given a power of attorney to a third person, the latter thereby becomes a duly authorized agent,
in the former case with respect to the person who received the special information, and in the
latter case with regard to any person.
The power shall continue to be in full force until the notice is rescinded in the same manner in
which it was given. (n)

Art. 1874. When a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the
authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void. (n)

Art. 1875. Agency is presumed to be for a compensation, unless there is proof to the contrary.
(n)

Art. 1876. An agency is either general or special.

The former comprises all the business of the principal. The latter, one or more specific
transactions. (1712)

Art. 1877. An agency couched in general terms comprises only acts of administration, even if
the principal should state that he withholds no power or that the agent may execute such acts
LEGAL FORMS JANUARY 28 ASSIGNMENT Page 9 of 10

as he may consider appropriate, or even though the agency should authorize a general and
unlimited management. (n)

Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney are necessary in the following cases:

(1) To make such payments as are not usually considered as acts of administration;

(2) To effect novations which put an end to obligations already in existence at the time the
agency was constituted;

(3) To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to renounce the right to appeal from a
judgment, to waive objections to the venue of an action or to abandon a prescription already
acquired;

(4) To waive any obligation gratuitously;

(5) To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired
either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration;

(6) To make gifts, except customary ones for charity or those made to employees in the
business managed by the agent;

(7) To loan or borrow money, unless the latter act be urgent and indispensable for the
preservation of the things which are under administration;

(8) To lease any real property to another person for more than one year;

(9) To bind the principal to render some service without compensation;

(10) To bind the principal in a contract of partnership;

(11) To obligate the principal as a guarantor or surety;

(12) To create or convey real rights over immovable property;

(13) To accept or repudiate an inheritance;

(14) To ratify or recognize obligations contracted before the agency;

(15) Any other act of strict dominion. (n)

Art. 1879. A special power to sell excludes the power to mortgage; and a special power to
mortgage does not include the power to sell. (n)
LEGAL FORMS JANUARY 28 ASSIGNMENT Page 10 of 10

Art. 1880. A special power to compromise does not authorize submission to arbitration. (1713a)

Art. 1881. The agent must act within the scope of his authority. He may do such acts as may be
conducive to the accomplishment of the purpose of the agency. (1714a)

Art. 1882. The limits of the agent's authority shall not be considered exceeded should it have
been performed in a manner more advantageous to the principal than that specified by him.
(1715)

Art. 1883. If an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right of action against the
persons with whom the agent has contracted; neither have such persons against the principal.

In such case the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the person with whom he has
contracted, as if the transaction were his own, except when the contract involves things
belonging to the principal.

The provisions of this article shall be understood to be without prejudice to the actions between
the principal and agent. (1717) 

 
ii. SEC 64. PD NO. 1529 -> PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1529 - AMENDING AND
CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
SECTION 64. Power of Attorney. — Any person may, by power of attorney, convey or otherwise
deal with registered land and the same shall be registered with the Register of Deeds of the
province or city where the land lies. Any instrument revoking such power of attorney shall be
registered in like manner. 

b. KINDS
i. GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
ii. SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
*Case: FRANCISCO A. VELOSO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AGLALOMA B.
ESCARIO, assisted by her husband GREGORIO L. ESCARIO, the REGISTER OF DEEDS
FOR THE CITY OF MANILA, respondents. [G.R. No. 102737. August 21, 1996.]
 SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 102737. August 21, 1996.]

FRANCISCO A. VELOSO , petitioner, vs . COURT OF APPEALS,

AGLALOMA B. ESCARIO, assisted by her husband GREGORIO L.
ESCARIO, the REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF MANILA ,
respondents.

Bernas Law Offices for petitioner.

Edgardo A. Arandia for private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; AGENCY; A 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. — 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 special
power of attorney can be included in the general power when it is speci ed therein the act
or transaction for which the special power is required.
2. ID.; SALE; PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH; DEFINED; HIS REMEDY IN CASE OF
FRAUD. — It has been consistently held that a purchaser in good faith is one who buys
property of another, without notice that some other person 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. "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 led for recovery of
damages against the Assurance Fund."
3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FORGERY CANNOT BE PRESUMED. — Mere
variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were
forged. Forgery cannot be presumed. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing
evidence and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same.
4. ID.; ID.; NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS ARE PRESUMED TO BE VALID AND DULY
EXECUTED. — Documents acknowledged before a notary public have the evidentiary
weight with respect to their due execution. The questioned power of attorney and deed of
sale, were notarized and therefore, presumed to be valid and duly executed.
5. CIVIL LAW; PRINCIPLE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, DEFINED. — 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.

DECISION
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 JR. J :
TORRES, JR., p

This petition for review assails the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated July 29,
1991, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
Costs against appellant." 1

The following are the antecedent facts:

Petitioner Francisco Veloso was the owner of a parcel of land situated in the district
of Tondo, Manila, with an area of one hundred seventy seven (177) square meters and
covered by Transfer Certi cate of title No. 49138 issued by the Registry of Deeds of
Manila. 2 The title was registered in the name of Francisco A. Veloso, single, 3 on October
4, 1957. 4 The said title was subsequently cancelled and a new one, Transfer Certi cate of
Title No. 180685, was issued in the name of Aglaloma B. Escario, married to Gregorio L.
Escario, on May 24, 1988. 5
On August 24, 1988, petitioner Veloso led an action for annulment of documents,
reconveyance of property with damages and preliminary injunction and/or restraining
order. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case no. 88-45926, was ra ed to the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 45, Manila. Petitioner alleged therein that he was the absolute owner of
the subject property and he never authorized anybody, not even his wife, to sell it. He
alleged that he was in possession of the title but when his wife, Irma, left for abroad, he
found out that his copy was missing. He then veri ed with the Registry of Deeds of Manila
and there he discovered that his title was already canceled in favor of defendant Aglaloma
Escario. The transfer of property was supported by a General Power of Attorney 6 dated
November 29, 1985 and Deed of Absolute Sale, dated November 2, 1987, executed by
Irma Veloso, wife of the petitioner and appearing as his attorney-in-fact, and defendant
Aglaloma Escario. 7 Petitioner Veloso, however, denied having executed the power of
attorney and alleged that his signature was falsi ed. 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 Certi cate 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 of the complaint and the payment to her of
damages. 8
Pre-trial was conducted. The sole issue to be resolved by the trial court was whether
or not there was a valid sale of the subject property. 9
During the trial, plaintiff (herein petitioner) Francisco Veloso testi ed that he
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 acquired the subject property from the Philippine Building Corporation, as evidenced by a
Deed of Sale dated October 1, 1957. 1 0 He married Irma Lazatin on January 20, 1962. 1 1
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 falsi ed, 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.
In the decision of the trial court dated March 9, 1990, 1 2 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
su cient 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
posses the copy. Citing Section 55 of Act 496, the court held that Irma's possession and
production of the certi cate of title was deemed a conclusive authority from the plaintiff
to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certi cate. Then applying the principle of equitable
estoppel, plaintiff was held to bear the loss of it was he who made the wrong possible.
Thus:
"WHEREFORE, the Court finds for the defendants and against plaintiff —
a. declaring that there was a valid sale of the subject property in favor
of the defendant;

b. denying all other claims of the parties for want of legal and factual
basis.

Without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED."

Not satis ed with the decision, petitioner Veloso led his appeal with the Court of
Appeals. The respondent court affirmed in toto the findings of the trial court.
Hence, this petition for review before Us.
This petition for review was initially dismissed for failure to submit an a davit of
service of a copy of the petition on the counsel for private respondent. 1 3 A motion for
reconsideration of the resolution was led but it was denied in a resolution dated March
30, 1992. 1 4 A second motion for reconsideration was led and in a resolution dated Aug.
3, 1992, the motion was granted and the petition for review was reinstated. 1 5
A supplemental petition was led on October 9, 1992 with the following assignment
of errors:
I

The Court of Appeals committed a grave error in not nding that the
forgery of the power of attorney (Exh. "C") had been adequately proven, despite
the preponderant evidence, and in doing so, it has so far departed from the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 applicable provisions of law and the decisions of this Honorable Court, as to
warrant the grant of this petition for review on certiorari.

II

There are principles of justice and equity that warrant a review of the
decision.

III

The Court of Appeals erred in a rming the decision of the trial court which
misapplied the principle of equitable estoppel since the petitioner did not fail in
his duty of observing due diligence in the safekeeping of the title to the property.

We find petitioner's contentions not meritorious.

An examination of the records showed that 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,
to wit:
"2. To buy or sell, hire or lease, mortgage or otherwise hypothecate
lands, tenements and hereditaments or other forms of real property, more
speci cally TCT No. 49138, upon such terms and conditions and under such
covenants as my said attorney shall deem fit and proper." 1 6

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 special power of attorney can be included in the
general power when it is speci ed therein the act or transaction for which the special
power is required.
The general power of attorney was accepted by the Register of Deeds when the title
to the subject property was cancelled and transferred in the name of private respondent.
In LRC Consulta No. 123, Register of Deeds of Albay, Nov. 10, 1956, it stated that:
"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 can not 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 speci c power to sell or mortgage or to do other speci c acts of
strict dominion, then in that case only acts of administration may be deemed
conferred."

Petitioner contends that his signature on the power of attorney was falsi ed. He
also alleges that the same was not duly notarized for as testi ed by Atty. Tubig himself, he
did not sign thereon nor was it ever recorded in his notarial register. To bolster his
argument, petitioner had presented checks, marriage certi cate and his residence
certi cate to prove his alleged genuine signature which when compared to the signature in
the power of attorney, showed some difference.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 We found, however, that the basis presented by the petitioner was inadequate to
sustain his allegation of forgery. Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as
conclusive proof that the same were forged. Forgery cannot be presumed. 17 Petitioner,
however, failed to prove his allegation and simply relied on the apparent difference of the
signatures. His denial had not established that the signature on the power of attorney was
not his.
We agree with the conclusion of the lower court that private respondent was an
innocent purchaser for value. Respondent Aglaloma relied on the power of attorney
presented by petitioner's wife, Irma. Being the wife of the owner and having with her the
title of the property, there was no reason for the private respondent not to believe, in her
authority. Moreover, the power of attorney was notarized and as such, carried 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 good faith. It has been
consistently held that a purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of another,
without notice that some other person 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. 1 8
Documents acknowledged before a notary public have the evidentiary weight with
respect to their due execution. The questioned power of attorney and deed of sale, were
notarized and therefore, presumed to be valid and duly executed. Atty. Tubig denied having
notarized the said documents and alleged that his signature had also been falsi ed. He
presented samples of his signature to prove his contention. Forgery should be proved by
clear and convincing evidence and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same.
Just like the petitioner, witness Atty. Tubig merely pointed out that his signature was
different from that in the power of attorney and deed of 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 1 9 (quoting Osborn, The Problem of Proof) that:
"The process of identi cation, therefore, must include the determination of
the extent, kind, and signi cance 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 petitioner's signature was falsi ed
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, 20 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 led for recovery of damages against the Assurance
Fund."

Finally, the trial court did not err in applying equitable estoppel in this case. The
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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. From the evidence
adduced, it should be the petitioner who should bear the loss. As the court a quo found:
"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 Certi cate 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 Certi cate of Title to defendant operated
as "conclusive authority from the plaintiff to the Register of Deeds to enter a new
certificate." 2 1

Considering the foregoing premises, we found no error in the appreciation of facts

and application of law by the lower court which will warrant the reversal or modi cation of
the appealed decision.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition for review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Romero, Puno and Mendoza, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Decision, Rollo, p. 59, penned by J.N. Lapeña, Jr. and concurred in by J.R. Pronove and
J.C. Santiago.

2. Exh. "A", Annex "A", Records, p. 12 and 155.

3. Exh. "A-1", Ibid.

4. Exh. "A-2", Ibid.

5. Exh. "B", Annex B, Exh. "3", Records, p. 15 and 157.

6. Records, pp. 96-97.

7. Records, pp. 94-95.

8. Answer, Records, pp. 43-47.

9. Order, Records, pp. 74-76.

10. Exh. "F", Records, pp. 163-164.

11. Exh. "H", Records, p. 166.

12. Decision, Records, pp. 283-292.

13. Resolution, February 3, 1992, Rollo, p. 65.

14. Rollo, p. 72.

15. Rollo, p. 93.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com