Professional Documents
Culture Documents
526,JUNE29,2007
63
G.R.No.153839.June29,2007.
64
64
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villegas vs. Lingan
redeemingtheproperty.Clearly,therefore,Marilou,asowner,had
therighttosellthepropertytoanother.
Actions; Words and Phrases; Cause of Action; Elements.A
causeofactionisanactoromissionofthedefendantinviolationof
the legal right of the plaintiff. A complaint states a cause of action
whenitcontainsthreeessentialelements:(1)arightinfavorofthe
plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises; (2)
anobligationofthedefendanttorespectsuchright;and(3)theact
oromissionofthedefendantviolatestherightoftheplaintiff.
Agency; Parties; Since, as a rule, the agency, as a contract, is
binding only between the contracting parties, then only the parties,
as well as the third person who transacts with the parties
themselves, may question the validity of the agency or the violation
of the terms and conditions found therein.Divestedofallinterest
over the property, the petitioner has ceased to be the proper party
who may challenge the validity of the sale. Moreover, since, as a
rule, the agency, as a contract, is binding only between the
contractingparties,thenonlytheparties,aswellasthethirdperson
who transacts with the parties themselves, may question the
validity of the agency or the violation of the terms and conditions
found therein. This rule is a corollary of the foregoing doctrine on
therightsofrealpartiesininterest.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionand
resolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Placido M. Sabbanforpetitioner.
Garcia and Allas Law OfficesforrespondentLingan.
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1
underRule45oftheRulesofCourtassailingtheDecision
dated
_______________
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeB.A.AdefuinDeLaCruz(nowretired),
VOL.526,JUNE29,2007
65
Villegas(petitioner).
ThiscaseoriginatedfromaComplaintforAnnulmentof
TitleandInstrumentwithDamagesfiledbythepetitioner
against Victor Lingan (respondent) and Atty. Ernesto
Carreon as the Register of Deeds of Cagayan. The
respondentfiledhisAnswerandpretrialensued.TheRTC
issuedaPreTrialOrderwhereinitdeclaredthatnofactual
issueexistsandthatthesolelegalissuetoberesolvedis:
Whether or not the power of attorney is a general power of
attorney or a special power of attorney. Corrolarily, whether upon
the terms thereof, the attorneyinfact Gloria Roa Catral, had
authority, or none at all, to execute the deed of sale in favor of
3
[respondent]VictorLingan.
66
66
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villegas vs. Lingan
OnMay17,1996,GloriaR.Catral(Catral),byvirtueofthe
samepowerofattorney,executedaDeedofSaleinfavorof
5
respondent.
Petitionerclaimsthatthepowerofattorneyexecutedin
favor of Catral, petitioners motherinlaw, created a
principalagentrelationshiponlybetweenhiswife,Marilou
CatralVillegas(Marilou)asprincipal,andCatral,asagent,
andthenonlyforthelattertoadministerthepropertiesof
the former; that he never authorized Catral to administer
his properties, particularly, herein subject property; and
that Catral had no authority to execute the Deed of
AbsoluteSaleinfavoroftherespondent,sincefromthevery
wordings of the power of attorney, she had no6 special
authoritytosellorconveyanyspecificrealproperty.
On December 19, 1996, the RTC dismissed the
Complaint,rulingthatthetenorofthepowerofattorneyin
questionisbroadenoughtoincludetheauthoritytosellany
propertyoftheprincipal,who,inthiscase,isthepetitioner;
that the act of the agent, Catral, in executing the Deed of
AbsoluteSaleinfavorofrespondentwaswithinherpower
or authority; that the power to enter into any and all
contracts and agreements qualified the said power of
attorney as a special power of attorney; that the Deed of
AbsoluteSaleisvalidandbinds
_______________
4Id.,atpp.2122.
5ExhibitC&Exhibit2,Rollo,p.41.
6CARollo,pp.2223.
67
VOL.526,JUNE29,2007
67
68
68
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villegas vs. Lingan
I.
69
VOL.526,JUNE29,2007
69
70
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villegas vs. Lingan
Undertheaboveprovision,petitionercouldhaveredeemed
the property from Marilou after she had redeemed it. The
pleadingsfiledandtherecordsofthiscasedonotshowthat
petitioner exercised said right. Consequently, as correctly
heldbytheCA,Marilouacquiredownershipofthesubject
_______________
12Castro
v. Bague,411Phil.532,540;359SCRA28(2001);De Castro
VOL.526,JUNE29,2007
71
PROCEDURE ANNOTATED,104(2001).
14 Barcelona
(2003).
72
72
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Villegas vs. Lingan
73
VOL.526,JUNE29,2007
73
Uy vs. Villanueva
Notes.The presumption is that all property of the
marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership, unless it is
proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or the
wife.(Cuenca vs. Cuenca,168SCRA335[1988])
The fact that the land was registered in the name of a
certain person with a description that he is married to a
particularspouseisnoproofthatthepropertywasacquired
during the spousal coverture. (Francisco vs. Court of
Appeals,299SCRA188[1998])
o0o