G.R. No. L-77008 December 29, 1987
ANGELITA LOPEZ, represented by PRISCILLA L. TY as her Attorney-in-Fact, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY (BRANCH 103) and ANTONIO MURILLO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Angelita Lopez, a Filipino citizen residing in Norway, filed an ejectment suit against private respondent Antonio Murillo through her alleged attorney-in-fact, Priscilla L. Ty. The action was initiated in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. To establish her authority to represent Lopez, Ty presented a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Lopez before a city judge-notary public in Oslo, Norway. The MeTC admitted the SPA into evidence and ruled in favor of Lopez, ordering Murillo’s ejectment.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC’s decision. The RTC held that the SPA was inadmissible in evidence because its due execution and authenticity were not proven. It concluded that the suit was not filed by the real party-in-interest or a duly authorized representative. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied Lopez’s petition, affirming the RTC’s ruling. The appellate court emphasized that the authority of the attorney-in-fact was not duly established, rendering the action procedurally infirm.

ISSUE

Whether a Special Power of Attorney executed and notarized in a foreign country is admissible in evidence in Philippine courts without the certification required under the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the SPA is not admissible and declared all prior proceedings null and void. The legal logic is anchored on the specific rules governing the authentication of foreign public documents. While a notarized document is a public document, its admissibility in Philippine courts when executed abroad is governed by Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. This provision requires that a copy of a foreign public document must be attested by the official having legal custody of the record, accompanied by a certificate issued by a Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in that foreign country, authenticated by the seal of his office.
The SPA in question, though notarized by a city judge in Oslo, lacked the requisite certification from a Philippine consul, vice-consul, or other authorized foreign service officer. Consequently, it was inadmissible as evidence. Since the authority of Ty to institute the suit was based solely on this inadmissible SPA, the action was not commenced by the real party-in-interest or a duly authorized representative. This fatal defect meant that the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the real party-in-interest, Angelita Lopez. Therefore, all proceedings in the MeTC, RTC, and Court of Appeals were declared null and void ab initio, and the case was dismissed.