G.R. No.

153743
March 18, 2005
NORMA B. DOMINGO, petitioner,
vs.
YOLANDA ROBLES; and MICHAEL MALABANAN ROBLES, MARICON
MALABANAN ROBLES, minors represented by mother YOLANDA
ROBLES, respondents
Topic: Obligations of the Principal
Principal: Norma Domingo;

Agent: Flor Bacani;

3rdParty: Robles

Doctrine: The principal must comply with all the obligations which the agent
may have contracted within the scope of his authority. If agent exceeded
power, then principal is not bound except when he ratifies it, expressly ot
tacitly.
Facts:
1. Petitioner Norma Domingo, and her husband Valentino, were the
registered owners of a lot in a subdivision in Marikina.
2. Norma decided to sell the land because her husband failed to send
the necessary financial support.
3. Flor Bacani (Flor is male), a friend, volunteered to act as Normas
agent in selling the lot. Trusting Bacani, Norma delivered her copy
of the TCT.
4. Norma also gave all her receipts of payment of real estate taxes for
petition for reconstitution when the TCT was allegedly lost by Bacani.
5. Bacani also asked Norma to sign an exhibit of records. However,
thereafter, Bacani did not show up anymore.
6. When Norma visited the lot, she was surprised to see that
respondents Robles were building a house. Upon verification with
the Register of Deeds, it was found that the TCT was cancelled and
the lot was sold and named to the Robles with Norma and Valentino
as the sellers.
7. Norma, arguing that she did not meet any of the Robles nor
have signed any sale, assumed that such sale was a forgery.
Hence, this case of nullity and reconveyance.

8. Respondent Robles alleged that they were buyers in good faith; that
Bacani introduced the supposed sellers; that a Deed of Absolute
Sale with Norma and Valentinos signature was presented; and
Robles paid the full price.
9. CA: held in favor of respondents. Petitioners did not present any
evidence to prove that respondents had prior knowledge of any other
persons right/interest to the property.
Issue: W/N the sale was valid
Held: Yes.
1. Notarized document like the Deed of Absolute Sale enjoys a prima
facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Forgery cannot
be presumed. Hence, petitioner is incumbent to prove it. But she
failed to do so.
a. It was found that the signature in the DoS and her pleadings
are strikingly similar. Hence, its safe to assume it was not
forged.
2. The sale was admittedly made with the aid of Bacani, Normas agent,
who had with him the original owners copy of TCT, free from any
liens or encumbrances. The signatures of Spouses Domingo, also
appear on the Deed of Absolute Sale.
3. It was also found that Valentino actually met with respondent
Robles and received payment for the property. (Authors note:
Principal accepted the benefits of the sale. Hence, they cannot deny
liability from actions of agent).
4. The law requires, as a prerequisite to registration, the production of
the owners certificate of title and the instrument of conveyance.
5. The registered owner who places in the hands of another an
executed document of transfer of registered land effectively
represents to a third party that the holder of such document is
authorized to deal with the property.
ROBLES WON. PETITION DENIED.
*Authors note: No mention of any provision in Agency. Most applicable is Art.
1910 and 1911.*