Philippine National Bank v. Tan Ong Zse
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint against Tan Ong Zse Vda. de Tan Toco for the sum of P357,075.80, plus interest and attorney's fees. PNB sought the sale of mortgaged property and, if insufficient, a writ of attachment against other properties of the defendant. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Iloilo dismissed the complaint. The PNB appealed this dismissal. The Petition: The PNB appealed, assigning ten alleged errors committed by the trial court, primarily concerning the exclusion of evidence and the failure to find that the defendant had authorized Mariano de la Rama Tan Bunco to administer and mortgage her property.
Issue(s)
Whether the memorandum of a power of attorney noted on the back of an original certificate of title constitutes conclusive proof of the contents and scope of authority of said power of attorney.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ordered the case reopened and remanded to the court of origin for the presentation of the original power of attorney and related evidence. A new judgment is to be rendered based on all evidence presented. The Court did not definitively rule on the merits of the PNB's claim but focused on the procedural issue of evidence admissibility.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that notations or memoranda on the back of a certificate of title are not admissible as proof of the contents of the documents to which they refer. While Section 47 of Act No. 496 provides that the original certificate is conclusive evidence, this refers only to the 'transcript of the decree of registration' as defined by Sections 40 and 41 of the same Act. The Court reasoned that notations are, at most, proof of the existence of transactions, their presentation to the registrar, and notice to the whole world under Section 51. It would be extremely hazardous to accept such extracts as conclusive proof of a document's contents because the registrar's summary might omit specific conditions or limitations stipulated by the parties. Furthermore, accepting the memorandum as conclusive would violate the fundamental Best Evidence Rule found in Section 321 of Act No. 190, which dictates that a document itself is the best proof of its contents. Therefore, the non-presentation of the power of attorney deprived the court of the best means to determine if the acts of the alleged attorney-in-fact were within the scope of his authority. In the interest of equity and justice, the Court allowed the case to be reopened so the actual power of attorney could be produced.
Main Doctrine
A memorandum of a power of attorney noted on the back of an original certificate of title is not admissible as proof of the contents of said power of attorney, but only of the fact of its execution, its presentation for notation, and its notation for the purposes of preferential rights to the registered land covered by the title. The original power of attorney itself must be presented as evidence.