G.R. No. 104166 July 30, 1993
JULITA S. ZAMBO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CARIDAD SANCHEZ VDA. DE BABAO and EUTIQUIANO V. SANCHEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Julita S. Zambo and private respondents Caridad Sanchez Vda. de Babao and Eutiquiano V. Sanchez are full-blood siblings and pro-indiviso owners of a house and lot in Mandaue City inherited from their parents. On May 9, 1985, they entered into an Agreement to partition the property by first demolishing the residential building thereon, subdividing the lot into three equal portions, and determining ownership of each portion by raffle. Petitioner Julita Zambo was tasked with undertaking the demolition. When petitioner refused to implement the agreement, respondents filed a complaint for specific performance (Civil Case No. MAN-79). During the pre-trial on June 2, 1986, petitioner was represented by her attorney-in-fact, Omar Redulla, under a duly notarized Special Power of Attorney authorizing him to represent her at the pre-trial and to consider and agree upon matters including the possibility of an amicable settlement. After discussions, the parties reached an amicable settlement affirming the May 5, 1985 agreement and setting specific terms for demolition and subdivision. The settlement was signed by the parties and their representatives and approved by the trial court on June 5, 1986. Petitioner later filed a petition for relief from the court’s order, which was denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Special Power of Attorney executed by petitioner in favor of Omar Redulla authorized him to enter into the compromise agreement on her behalf.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that the Special Power of Attorney, being a public document executed and attested before a notary public, is evidence of the facts clearly expressed therein and enjoys the presumption of regularity. After reading the document in its entirety, the Court found no ambiguity in its terms, as it expressly authorized the attorney-in-fact to represent petitioner at the pre-trial and to consider and agree upon the possibility of an amicable settlement. The Court found no clear and convincing evidence to contradict the document’s terms or to justify a review of the factual findings. Consequently, the compromise agreement was valid and binding, and there was no reason to delay its execution.
