ESTATE OF LINO OLAGUER, REPRESENTED BY LINA O. OLAGUER AND LINDA O.

MONTAYRE, PETITIONERS
V.
EMILIANO M. ONGJOCO, RESPONDENT
GR No. 173312 August 26, 2008
Chico-Nazario, J.
SV: 2 groups of lots were sold to Ongjoco by Jose. In one group of lots, it was
claimed by the seller (Jose Olaguer) that he had the power of attorney to sell the
lots. On the second group of lots, there was evidence that Jose had a general power
of attorney to sell the 2nd group of lots.
SC: as for the first group, the Ongjoco was a purchaser in bad faith since though he
claimed that Jose had a power of attorney, he failed to produce it in court. However
for the second group of lots, there was a general power of attorney which
authorized him to sell the lot. Although normally, a general power of attorney is not
enough to authorize a sale of land, the general power specifically stated that Jose
was authorized to sell the lots which in this case was sufficient.

1. Petitioners are the children of Lino Olaguer and Olivia Olaguer.

2. When Lino died, Olivia became the administrator and Eduardo Olaguer as co-
administrator of his estate. Olivia then got married to Jose Olaguer.
3. As administrators, Olivia and Eduardo sold 12 parcels of land owned by Lino
to Pastor Bacani, including Lot 76which is the lot in question. A day later, it
was sold back to them, splitting to them the portion of which 6/13went to
Olivia, while 7/13 went to Eduardo.
4. She then made a special power of attorney in favor of Jose, giving him the
power to sell, mortgage, transfer, assign endorse and deliver with respect to
her share over Lot76.
5. The lot was subdivided, having Lots 76-B to 76-G in the name of Olivia.
6. As attorney-in-fact, Jose sold the six parcels of land in favor of his son, Virgilio
Olaguer. Lots76-B and 76-C was consolidated and further subdivided into a
proportional share, making them Lots 1 and 2.
7. Jose, claiming to be the attorney-in-fact of his son, sold Lots 1 and 2 to
Emiliano Ongjoco.
8. He further sold Lots76-D to 76-G to Ongjoco twice on different dates, this
time evidenced by a notarized general power of attorney.
9. Petitioners moved for the sale made by Spouses Olivia and Jose Olaguer to be
null and void. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners (on the subject lots), but CA
reversed.

ISSUE: WON Ongjoco is an innocent purchaser for value.

As for the sale of Lots 1 and 2, Ongjoco was a purchaser in bad faith
o The purported power of attorney was never presented to the trial
court. Ongjoco wasnt able to explain this omission. Other than the self-
serving statement, no evidence was offered to prove the alleged
written power of attorney.
o There is not written power of attorney to speak of
As for Lots 76-D to G, Ongjoco was able to present a general power of
attorney that was executed by Virgilio Olaguer.
 o While the law requires a special power of attorney , the general
power of attorney was sufficient in this case as Jose was expressly
empowered to sell any of Virgilios properties and to sign, execute,
acknowledge and deliver any agreement therefor.
o Even if a document is designated as a general power of attorney, the
requirement of a special power of attorney is met if there is a clear
mandate from the principal specifically authorizing the performance of
the act
o The SPA can be included in the General Power when the act or
transaction for which the special power is required is specified therein.
o The written power of attorney contained the signature of Virgilio and
was duly notarized. As a public document it enjoys presumption of
authenticity and due execution which can only be contradicted by clear
and convincing evidence which was absent in this case.
The fact that the lots were sold to Ongjoco twice does not warrant the
conclusion that he was a buyer in bad faith. It does not indicate that
respondent knew of any defect in the title of the owner of the property

Petition Partially granted. Assailed decision of the CA modified.

Justin Benedict A. Moreto (facts adapted from a digest found in the internet)