This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-22 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Anent the CA observation that the assignment of the right of redemption was not properly executed and/or authenticated, Lopez v. Court of Appeals[16] is instructive. In Lopez, this Court ruled that a special power of attorney executed in a foreign country is generally not admissible in evidence as a public document in our courts. The Court there held:Is the special power of attorney relied upon by Mrs. Ty a public document? We find that it is. It has been notarized by a notary public or by a competent public official with all the solemnities required by law of a public document. When executed and acknowledged in the Philippines, such a public document or a certified true copy thereof is admissible in evidence. Its due execution and authentication need not be proven unlike a private writing. | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Lopez v. Court of Appeals,[33] we have ruled that a special power of attorney executed in a foreign country is, generally, not admissible in evidence as a public document in our courts. In said case, we said:Is the special power of attorney relied upon by Mrs. Ty a public document? We find that it is. It has been notarized by a notary public or by a competent public official with all the solemnities required by law of a public document. When executed and acknowledged in the Philippines, such a public document or a certified true copy thereof is admissible in evidence. Its due execution and authentication need not be proven unlike a private writing. | |||||