GR 179597; (December, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 179597, December 3, 2014
IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF BERNARDINO TAEZA, Respondents.
FACTS
The Supreme Court promulgated a Decision on February 3, 2014, declaring petitioner Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI) as the rightful owner of the lots covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-77994 and T-77995, ordering respondents to execute a deed conveying the lots to IFI, vacate the premises, and pay costs. Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality on July 9, 2014. Subsequently, the parties filed a Joint Manifestation dated July 14, 2014, praying for the Court’s approval of an attached Compromise Agreement dated June 27, 2014, to resolve the dispute speedily. The Compromise Agreement stipulated that the subject property would be sold to a third party, with the proceeds divided between the parties. However, the only signatory to the agreement was Right Rev. Ernesto M. Tamayo, Bishop of the Diocesan Church of Tuguegarao, purportedly authorized by the Supreme Bishop, Most Reverend Ephraim S. Fajutagana, via a Special Power of Attorney dated September 27, 2011.
ISSUE
Whether the Compromise Agreement should be approved by the Court, considering the question of authority of the signatory to bind petitioner IFI in the sale of its real property.
RULING
The Court DENIED the Joint Manifestation and DISAPPROVED the Compromise Agreement. The Court reiterated its ruling in the February 3, 2014 Decision that any sale of real property by IFI requires not only the consent of the Supreme Bishop but also the concurrence of the laymen’s committee, the parish priest, and the Diocesan Bishop, as sanctioned by the Supreme Council. The Compromise Agreement, which involved selling the property to a third party, raised the same issue of whether the Supreme Bishop had the authority to enter into such a contract on behalf of IFI. Since the agreement was signed only by Right Rev. Ernesto M. Tamayo under a Special Power of Attorney from the Supreme Bishop, without demonstrating compliance with the required concurrences, the Court found the agreement invalid and refused to approve it.