ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214134. January 12, 2015.]
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, petitioner, vs. REMEDIOS DOMO-SANDOT, ROBERTO DOMO RAIZ, PEDRITO DOMO, AND MELECIO D. ARADO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 12, 2015which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 214134 (National Development Company v. Remedios Domo-Sandot, Roberto Domo Raiz, Pedrito Domo, and Melecio D. Arado). — After a careful perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the August 29, 2014 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 01743-MIN for failure of petitioner National Development Company (NDC) to show any reversible error committed by the CA in upholding the nullification of the sale of Lot No. 263 to it.
As aptly pointed out by the CA, when a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the same is void pursuant to Article 1874 of the Civil Code. It is not enough that the existence of a special power of attorney be merely referred to in a deed of sale. It must be offered in evidence. For, litigations cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, deductions or even presumptions, with no basis in evidence, for the truth must have to be determined by the hard rules of admissibility and proof. 2 This Court cannot quite fathom why NDC failed to submit the special power of attorney that it claimed was presented to it by Melchor D. Estrosas (Melchor), the alleged agent of the Heirs of Lucas Domo. This only gives rise to the presumption that no such written authority exists, which is bolstered by the fact that Melchor's mother, Porferia Domo Estrosas, together with the other heirs, had earlier sold their interest to the land. In other words, Melchor was not only unauthorized to sell the interest of the other heirs, he likewise had no more interest in the land himself. Hence, NDC's arguments that it was a buyer in good faith and that respondents' action is already barred by prescription and laches have no leg to stand on. DIESaC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 38-52. Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja with Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Edward B. Contreras, concurring.
2. See HPS Software and Communication Corporation v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), G.R. Nos. 170217 & 170694, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 426, 457.