Guerrero vs.

Bravo
G.R. No. 152658, 29 July 2005

FACTS:
Sps. Mauricio Bravo and Simona Bravo owned 2 parcels of land. In 1966, Simona executed a
GPA (General Power of Attorney) appointing Mauricio as her attorney-in-fact. In the GPA,
Simona authorized Mauricio to “mortgage or otherwise hypothecate, sell, assign and dispose
of any and all of my property, real, personal or mixed, of any kind whatsoever and
wheresoever situated, or any interest therein xxx.” Mauricio subsequently mortgaged the
properties to PNB and DBP, then in 1970, sold the properties for P1,000 to his children, Roland,
Ofelia and Elizabeth. Part of the agreement was for the buyers to assume the mortgage on
the property. The Deed of Sale was not annotated on the TCTs nor presented to PNB and/or
DBP. The mortgage loans continued to be in Mauricio’s name even after his death in 1973.
Simona died in 1977.

In 1997, Edward filed an action for judicial partition of the properties asserting his right as co-
owner of the same. However, petitioners refused to share with him possession and rental
income of the properties. Edward later amended his complaint to include a prayer to annul
the Deed of Sale. He argued that it was VOID due to the ff:
1. Mauricio executed the Deed of Sale without Simona’s consent
2. Sale was merely simulated, as shown by the grossly inadequate consideration, to
prejudice the other heirs

ISSUE:
Whether the sale of 2 parcels of land by Mauricio armed with a General Power of Attorney is
valid? (YES)

HELD:
1. Lack of wife’s consent does not render the sale void

Under the present CC, it is well-settled that contracts alienating conjugal real property
without the wife’s consent are merely voidable – that is, binding on the parties unless annulled
by a competent court – and not void ab initio. Only the wife can ask to annul a contract that
disposes of conjugal real property without her consent. The wife must file the action for
annulment during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction. If the
wife fails to exercise this right within the specified period, the wife or her heirs can only
demand the value of the property provided they prove that the husband fraudulently
alienated the property.

As applied, the present action to annul the Deed of Sale was filed out of time. The
marriage of Mauricio and Simona was dissolved when Mauricio died in 1973. More than ten
years have passed since the execution of the Deed of Sale. Also, Simona never assailed the
Deed of Sale until her death.
2. GPA may contain a special power satisfying the requirement of Art. 1878

Art. 1878 requires a special power of attorney for an agent to execute a contract that
transfers the ownership of an immovable. However, the Court has clarified that Art. 1878
refers to the nature of the authorization, not to its form. Even if a document is titled 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.

As in the case Veloso v. CA, there was no need to execute a separate and special power
of attorney since the general power of attorney had expressly authorized the agent or
attorney in fact the power to sell the subject property. The special power of attorney can be
included in the general power when it is specified therein the act or transaction for which the
special power is required.

AS APPLIED, Simona expressly authorized Mauricio in the GPA to “sell, assign and
dispose of any and all of my property, real, personal or mixed, of any kind whatsoever and
wheresoever situated, or any interest therein xxx” as well as to “act as my general
representative and agent, with full authority to buy, sell, negotiate and contract for me and
in my behalf.” Taken together, these provisions constitute a clear and specific mandate to
Mauricio to sell the properties. Even if it is called a “general power of attorney,” the specific
provisions in the GPA are sufficient for the purposes of Art. 1878. These provisions in the GPA
likewise indicate that Simona consented to the sale of the Properties.

3. Price was not grossly inadequate

Gross inadequacy of price by itself will not result in a void contract. Gross inadequacy
of price does not even affect the validity of a contract of sale, unless it signifies a defect in the
consent or that the parties actually intended a donation or some other contract. Inadequacy
of cause will not invalidate a contract unless there has been fraud, mistake or undue influence.

As applied, respondents have not proved any of the instances that would invalidate
the Deed of Sale. While it was stated to be for only P1,000, the assumption of P15,000
mortgage would make the sale for the total consideration of P16,000. The sale was made in
1970 and considering its location in Makati, the sharp increase in the current FMV may not be
considered as shocking to the conscience as to justify the setting aside of the Deed of Sale.

4. Presumption of regularity

Both the GPA and Deed of Sale were notarized. They enjoy the presumption of
regularity, which was not overcome in this case.