PRUDENCIO DE JESUS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. FERNANDO GREY, JR., AND THE PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK, DEFENDANTS. FERNANDO GREY, JR., APPELLANT.

On September 16, 1929, the plaintiff, who is
the father-in-law of the defendant Grey, executed in favor of the
latter a power of attorney to sell or mortgage two parcels of land,
with the improvements thereon, belonging to the former and described in
transfer certificate of title No. 14194, issued in the plaintiff’s
name. The instrument thus executed was recorded in the registry of
deeds of the City of Manila on October 8th of the same year. By virtue
of the said power of attorney, the defendant, on October 10, 1929,
executed a mortgage deed whereby he constituted a mortgage for P12,000
on the said property in favor of the Philippine Postal Savings Bank,
the other defendant. Said mortgage was recorded in the registry of
deeds and later noted on the aforesaid transfer certificate of title.
From the proceeds of the mortgage, the defendant Grey paid to the city
treasurer the sum of P3,594.86 for unpaid taxes on the plaintiff’s real
property known as the Solis-Tondo Subdivision (Exhibit 9), the balance
thereof having been used by the said plaintiff on different occasions,
and for that reason the mortgages executed by him in favor of Wm. H.
Anderson, which had become due, could not be paid.

The plaintiff, alleging that he never executed the power of
attorney in question and that if he ever signed it his signature was
fraudulently obtained by the defendant Grey, brought this action
against Grey and the Philippine Postal Savings Bank, praying that the
power of attorney in question and the mortgage deed, which was executed
by the defendant Grey, be declared null and void, and that Grey and his
codefendant be ordered to indemnify him for damages in the sum of
P5,000.

The defendant Grey appealed from the judgment rendered by the trial court, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“Let judgment be rendered on the complaint:

“1. Holding that there is no ground to declare null
and void the power of attorney, Exhibit A, and the mortgage deed
executed and recorded in favor of the defendant the Philippine Postal
Savings Bank, Exhibit D;

“2. Ordering the defendant Fernando
Grey, jr., to pay to the plaintiff, by way of damages, the sum of
twelve thousand pesos (P12,000), with interest thereon at 9 per cent
per annum, plus whatever amount the Philippine Postal Savings Bank may
recover in connection with the mortgage loan of P12,000.

“3.
Condemning the defendant Grey to pay the costs. “As to the
cross-complaint, the plaintiff Prudencio de Jesus is entirely absolved
therefrom, with the costs against the defendant. So ordered.”

The plaintiff likewise appealed from that part of the judgment which
declared valid the mortgage constituted in favor of the Philippine
Postal Savings Bank.

Both appellants assign various alleged errors as committed by the
trial court in its judgment appealed from, which assignments need not
be discussed nor passed upon separately.

The trial court gave full credit to the plaintiff’s testimony. It
was greatly influenced by the circumstance that the said plaintiff is
an old man of more than seventy years of age and that he hardly
understands and writes Spanish. For such reasons it arrived at the
conclusion that although the signature appearing in the power of
attorney is the plaintiff’s genuine signature, it had been obtained
fraudulently and without his knowledge of the contents thereof.

This court has carefully examined all the evidence presented by the
parties, particularly the testimony of the witnesses presented, and
arrived at a different conclusion. This court is convinced that the
plaintiff not only signed the power of attorney in question but that,
before signing it, he was also informed of the contents thereof and of
the fact that it empowered his son-in-law to mortgage his two parcels
of land for the purpose of raising funds to meet his personal
obligations. It is natural and comprehensible that the plaintiff has
charged his son-in-law with fraud after the serious differences he had
with the latter. However, his testimony should be accepted with
caution, and should not be allowed to prevail against the testimony of
the instrumental witnesses and of the notary public before whom the
said power of attorney was ratified by the plaintiff. We refer to the
two instrumental witnesses because Venancio Cruz, who was presented by
the plaintiff and who testified that the said plaintiff did not sign
before him, had previously made an affidavit stating under oath that
the said plaintiff voluntarily signed the document in question in his
presence. After carefully studying all the evidence, this court does
not hesitate to declare that the plaintiff has not succeeded in
destroying the evidentiary force of the power of attorney which he had
executed in favor of his son-in-law.

The foregoing adversely decides the plaintiff’s appeal in regard to
the validity of the mortgage executed in favor of the Philippine Postal
Savings Bank. Inasmuch as the power of attorney is valid, it follows
that the mortgage in question must necessarily be valid.

The cross-complaints of the defendant Grey will now be discussed.
He prays that the plaintiff be ordered to render an accounting of his
transactions or sales of the portions composing the Solis-Tondo
Subdivision in order to determine the income obtained by the said
plaintiff during the period intervening between February 24, 1926, and
December 26, 1929, so that he (Grey) may be given 2 per cent thereof
which the said plaintiff had bound himself to pay him in consideration
of services rendered and of the profits obtained by the said plaintiff
from the subdivision in question. The evidence on this point,
particularly the power of attorney Exhibit 2, sufficiently supports the
contention of the defendant Grey. Inasmuch as the document in question
is genuine and effective, there is no reason why the plaintiff should
not comply with the terms thereof.

With respect to the last cross-complaint for the sum of P150,000
representing the amount of the promissory note Exhibit 16, the trial
court found that such document was executed without any valuable
consideration and for that reason it is null and void. The evidence,
which this court has reviewed, sufficiently and convincingly supports
this conclusion. According to the said promissory note, the amount in
question was given to the defendant Grey in consideration of an alleged
economy or savings of 30,000 square meters of land effected in the
preparation of the last subdivision, which area was valued at P10 a
square meter. It appears, however, that Grey hardly exerted any effort
in connection with the new plans, nor did he intervene in the
preparation thereof, his work having been confined merely to speaking
to Architect Arellano in order that the new plans might be approved, as
they were in fact approved. This court holds that such services,
however meritorious they might have been, can never be worth the
exorbitant and notorious sum of P150,000. This court concludes that the
trial court was right in not giving the promissory note in question any
legal effect.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is hereby affirmed in so far as it
declares valid the power of attorney Exhibit A and the mortgage deed
executed in favor of the Philippine Postal Savings Bank, and the same
is hereby reversed in so far as it condemns the defendant Grey (1) to
pay the plaintiff the sum of P12,000, with interest thereon at 9 per
cent per annum, plus whatever amount the Philippine Postal Savings Bank
may recover on account of the mortgage loan; (2) to pay the costs, and
(3) in so far as it absolves the plaintiff from the cross-complaint;
and the plaintiff is hereby ordered to render, within thirty (30) days,
an accounting of all income he has obtained from the Solis-Tondo
Subdivision and to pay to the defendant Grey two per cent (2%) of said
gross income, without special pronouncement as to the costs of this
instance. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Hull, and Goddard, JJ., concur.