Petitioner
San Miguel
Respondent
Gandionco
Citation
G.R. No. 237506
Court
Supreme Court
Decided
July 28, 2020

Summary

This case involves the validity of real estate mortgages executed by an attorney-in-fact under special powers of attorney. Property owners executed SPAs authorizing Roberto Gandionco to 'offer as collateral' their properties for his beer dealership with San Miguel Corporation. Roberto used these SPAs to execute actual mortgages, which SMC later foreclosed when Roberto defaulted on P7,000,000.00 obligations. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals voided the mortgages, ruling that the SPAs only authorized offering properties as collateral, not mortgaging them. However, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the SPA language coupled with 'full power and authority' provisions constituted sufficient authority to mortgage. The Court applied the doctrine of apparent authority, noting that property owners clothed Roberto with authority by executing SPAs and delivering original titles on multiple occasions. The decision establishes important precedent on the scope of authority under special powers of attorney and the application of apparent authority doctrine in mortgage transactions.

Intellegal Wiki · Key Holding

Partially granted the petition and reversed the CA, holding that a special power of attorney authorizing the agent to 'offer as collateral' coupled with 'full power and authority' sufficed to authorize a real estate mortgage, and applying the doctrine of apparent authority where the owners executed the SPAs and repeatedly delivered the titles; the mortgages were upheld and the case remanded to determine the balance owed.

An editorially maintained summary of the rule this Supreme Court decision is cited for — not legal advice.

Statutes applied

Featured in research

In-depth Intellegal research that discusses this case.

Common questions

Plain-language Q&A on the issues in this case.

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →

By the Intellegal Editorial Board · July 28, 2020

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →
AI-assisted case analysis — for research only. Verify against the official decision. A research aid, not legal advice; using this page creates no attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, consult a Philippine lawyer. Verify every holding and citation against the official decision (Supreme Court E-Library / Official Gazette) before relying on it.