G.R. No.

169548

March 15, 2010

TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.
MANUEL A. DAVID, SR. and MARTHA S. DAVID, Respondents.
FACTS:
-

Manuel and Martha David were spouses who owned lots registered in the latter's name. The spouses
separated de facto

Manuel discovered that Martha had sold the property to petitioner Titan Construction Corp. for P1.5M
through a Deed of Sale

Manuel filed a complaint for annulment of contract and reconveyance against petitioner Titan Construction
before the RTC-QC
o

Titans counterclaim stated that it was a buyer in good faith and for value because it relied on a Special
Power of Attorney (SPA) signed by Manuel which authorized Maria to dispose of the property on behalf of
the spouses
o

The SPA authorizing Maria to dispose of the property was void ab initio

CA: affirmed the lower court's decision

o

Titan prayed for the dismissal of the complaint

RTC: declared the deed of sale void ab initio

o

The ground was, the sale executed by Martha in favor of titan was made without his
knowledge/consent

MfR denied

Hence the instant PfRC R45

o

Titan contended that the lower court erred in declaring the SPA (and in turn, the deed of sale) void
ab initio

Ground: Rule 8, which states that when an action/defense is based on a written

instrument or document, the genuineness and due execution thereof is deemed admitted
unless the adverse party specifically denies them under oath

Manuel filed a reply alleging that the SPA was a forgery, but the same was not made
under oath

Therefore, Manuel cannot assail the genuineness and due execution of the SPA

ISSUE: Whether the lower court erred in declaring the deed of sale as void ab initio
RULING:

NO!!!

It is true that the reply filed by Manuel alleging that the special power of attorney is a forgery was not made under
oath. However, the complaint, which was verified by Manuel under oath, alleged that the sale of the subject property
executed by his wife, Martha, in favor of Titan was without his knowledge, consent, and approval, express or implied;
and that there is nothing on the face of the deed of sale that would show that he gave his consent thereto.
While Section 8, Rule 8 is mandatory, it is a discovery procedure and must be reasonably construed to attain its
purpose, and in a way as not to effect a denial of substantial justice. The interpretation should be one which assists
the parties in obtaining a speedy, inexpensive, and most important, a just determination of the disputed issues.