ANGELITA LOPEZ, REPRESENTED BY PRISCILLA L. TY AS HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY (BRANCH 103) AND ANTONIO MURILLO, R…

Lopez versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Angelita Lopez, a Filipino citizen residing in Norway, against the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and Antonio Murillo. Angelita Lopez, through her alleged attorney-in-fact Priscilla L. Ty, had filed an action for ejectment against Murillo. The central question is whether a special power of attorney executed before a notary public in a foreign country may be admitted in evidence in Philippine courts as a public document without proof of its due execution and authenticity. The case matters because it fixes the exact procedural gate through which a foreign notarized document must pass before a Philippine court may act on it, and because failure at that gate voids the entire proceedings for want of jurisdiction over the real party in interest.

Procedural History

Angelita Lopez, represented by Priscilla L. Ty as attorney-in-fact, filed an action for ejectment against the private respondent in the Metropolitan Trial Court of the Metropolitan Manila in Quezon City. Mrs. Ty presented a special power of attorney executed by the petitioner before a city judge-notary public of Oslo, Norway, and the inferior court admitted it. The Metropolitan Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner, finding the ejectment of the private respondent warranted.

The private respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, assailing among others the authority of Mrs. Ty to bring the action on the ground that the special power of attorney was inadmissible unless its due execution and authenticity were first proved. The Regional Trial Court reversed the inferior court, holding the special power of attorney inadmissible because its due execution and authenticity were not proved, and concluded that the suit was not instituted by the real party in interest nor by a duly authorized representative. A motion for reconsideration was denied.

The petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for certiorari, which was treated as a petition for review. The appellate court denied the petition for lack of merit, holding that the action was not filed by the proper party, since the real party in interest is Angelita Lopez and the due execution of the special power of attorney was not established. One justice dissented, espousing the view that the special power of attorney, being a public document duly executed before a notary public, needed no proof of authenticity. Hence this petition. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, later gave due course to the petition, and the parties submitted their respective memoranda.

Facts

Angelita Lopez is a Filipino citizen residing in Norway. On June 5, 1984, through her alleged attorney-in-fact Priscilla L. Ty, she filed an action for ejectment against the private respondent in the Metropolitan Trial Court of the Metropolitan Manila in Quezon City.

Mrs. Ty presented to the inferior court a special power of attorney authorizing her to prosecute the case in behalf of the petitioner. The document appeared to have been executed by the petitioner before a city judge-notary public of Oslo, Norway, and it was duly admitted by the court. On November 25, 1984, the inferior court rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner, finding the ejectment of the private respondent from the subject premises warranted.

The private respondent appealed, questioning Mrs. Ty's authority because the special power of attorney had not been shown to be duly executed and authentic. The Regional Trial Court agreed and reversed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The record of the case disclosed no compliance with the certification requirement for foreign public records.

Issues

• Whether or not the special power of attorney executed before a city judge-notary public in a foreign country is a public document admissible in evidence in Philippine courts.
• Whether or not such a foreign public document may be admitted without the certification and authentication prescribed for foreign official records.
• Whether or not the courts below acquired jurisdiction over the person of the real party in interest when the action was prosecuted by an attorney-in-fact whose authority was not duly established in evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 25. Proof of public or official record. An official record or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.

This provision supplies the exact mode of proof for a public record kept abroad, and it is the measure against which the Oslo special power of attorney failed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the special power of attorney is indeed a public document, having been notarized by a notary public or by a competent public official with all the solemnities required by law of a public document. When executed and acknowledged in the Philippines, such a public document or a certified true copy thereof is admissible in evidence, and its due execution and authentication need not be proven unlike a private writing. But the document here was not executed and acknowledged in the Philippines.

On the second issue, the Court held that when the special power of attorney is executed and acknowledged before a notary public or other competent official in a foreign country, it cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is certified in accordance with Section 25, Rule 132 by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent, or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The Court was explicit that a city judge-notary who notarized the document, as in this case, cannot issue such certification. Since the record disclosed no compliance with Section 25, the special power of attorney was not admissible in evidence.

On the third issue, the Court held that Mrs. Priscilla L. Ty could not lawfully prosecute the case in the name of her principal, her authority through a special power of attorney not having been duly established in evidence. The litigation was not commenced by the real party in interest or by one duly authorized by that party. Consequently, the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the real party in interest, Angelita Lopez, and for lack of the requisite jurisdiction all the proceedings in those courts were null and void from the beginning.

Doctrine

A special power of attorney executed before a city judge-public notary in a foreign country, without the certification or authentication required under Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, is not admissible in evidence in Philippine courts. A notarized document is a public document, and when executed and acknowledged in the Philippines it is admissible without proof of due execution and authenticity; but a foreign public document must be certified by the designated Philippine foreign service officer and authenticated by the seal of his office. An attorney-in-fact is not the real party in interest, and where his authority is not duly established in evidence, the action is not commenced by the real party in interest or by one duly authorized by him, so the courts acquire no jurisdiction over the person of the real party in interest and all proceedings are void from the beginning.

Disposition

The petition was denied in effect: the entire proceedings in the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals were declared null and void, the case was dismissed without costs, and the temporary restraining order was lifted.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a foreign notarized special power of attorney, without the Section 25, Rule 132 certification and authentication, is not admissible in Philippine courts, and that its absence leaves the courts without jurisdiction over the real party in interest. Examiners use this case in remedial law and evidence on the proof of foreign public documents, and in civil procedure on the real party in interest and the authority of an attorney-in-fact.