This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-01 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The petitioners impute error to the CA for not applying the "ordinary prudent man's standard" in determining their status as buyers in good faith. They contend that the more appropriate law to apply was Article 173 of the Civil Code, not Article 124 of the Family Code; and that even if the SPA held by Ma. Elena was a forgery, the ruling in Veloso v. Court of Appeals[26] warranted a judgment in their favor. | |||||
|
2005-08-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Veloso v. Court of Appeals,[24] the Court explained that a general power of attorney could contain a special power to sell that satisfies the requirement of Article 1878, thus:An examination of the records showed that the assailed power of attorney was valid and regular on its face. It was notarized and as such, it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. While it is true that it was denominated as a general power of attorney, a perusal thereof revealed that it stated an authority to sell, to wit: | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Veloso v. Court of Appeals,[24] the Court explained that a general power of attorney could contain a special power to sell that satisfies the requirement of Article 1878, thus:An examination of the records showed that the assailed power of attorney was valid and regular on its face. It was notarized and as such, it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. While it is true that it was denominated as a general power of attorney, a perusal thereof revealed that it stated an authority to sell, to wit: | |||||