Lopez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Angelita Lopez, a Filipino citizen residing in Norway, executed a special power of attorney (SPA) in favor of Priscilla L. Ty, authorizing her to prosecute an ejectment case against private respondent Antonio Murillo. The SPA was executed before a city judge-notary public of Oslo, Norway. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of petitioner. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), on appeal, reversed the MTC decision, holding the SPA inadmissible for lack of proof of due execution and authenticity, thus finding that the suit was not instituted by the real party-in-interest or her duly authorized representative. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied petitioner's petition for review, affirming the RTC's ruling. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA decision, questioning the admissibility of the SPA executed in a foreign country as a public document in Philippine courts.
Issue(s)
Whether a special power of attorney executed in a foreign country is admissible in evidence as a public document in Philippine courts. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the SPA was inadmissible for lack of proof of due execution and authenticity, and whether Mrs. Priscilla L. Ty could lawfully prosecute the case in behalf of her principal, Angelita Lopez. Whether the RTC and CA acquired jurisdiction over the person of the real party-in-interest.
Ruling
The Court ruled that the entire proceedings in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, and Court of Appeals are null and void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. The petition is granted, and the assailed decisions are set aside. The case is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the special power of attorney executed in a foreign country: The Court held that a special power of attorney (SPA) executed before a city judge-public notary in a foreign country is considered a public document. However, for such a document to be admissible in evidence in Philippine courts, it must comply with Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. This provision requires that if the record is kept in a foreign country, the document must be accompanied by a certificate from a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent, or any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in that country, authenticated by the seal of his office. A city judge-notary who notarized the document in a foreign country cannot issue such a certification. The Court found that the record did not disclose any compliance with this requirement on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the SPA in question was not admissible in evidence. On the authority of the attorney-in-fact and the real party-in-interest: Since the SPA was found inadmissible, Mrs. Priscilla L. Ty could not lawfully prosecute the case in behalf of her principal, Angelita Lopez. The Court reiterated that an action can only be filed by the real party-in-interest, and an attorney-in-fact has no interest in the litigation, citing Arroyo vs. Graneda. Consequently, the suit was not commenced by the real party-in-interest or by one duly authorized by her. This lack of proper authorization meant that the principal was not properly represented in court. On the jurisdiction of the lower courts: Because the case was not instituted by the real party-in-interest or her duly authorized representative, the Court concluded that 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. Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the court through the plaintiff's filing of the complaint or by the defendant's voluntary appearance or submission to the court's authority. In this instance, the court's authority over the plaintiff was never validly established due to the inadmissible SPA. For lack of the requisite jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff, all proceedings in the said courts were declared null and void ab initio. The Court emphasized that all proceedings must be set aside when jurisdiction is wanting from the outset.
Main 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.