## FACTS:

Petitioner Francisco Veloso owned a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila. His title, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 49138, was cancelled and replaced with Transfer Certificate of Title No. 180685 in the name of Aglaloma Escario on May 24, 1988. Alleging that he did not authorize the sale and that his signature in the power of attorney was forged, Veloso filed a case against Escario for annulment of documents, reconveyance of property, and damages. Escario, on the other hand, claimed to be a buyer in good faith and argued that if there was any liability, it should be directed toward his wife, Irma. The trial court focused on determining whether there was a valid sale of the property, ultimately ruling in favor of Escario by considering her as an innocent purchaser for value. This decision was then affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Unsatisfied with the outcome, Veloso sought recourse before the Supreme Court. Initially dismissed, his petition for review was later reinstated.

## ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the forgery of the power of attorney was not adequately proven despite the evidence presented.

2. Whether the principle of equitable estoppel was misapplied by the trial court given the petitioner's duty of due diligence in the safekeeping of the property title.

3. Whether the private respondent, Aglaloma Escario, was an innocent purchaser for value, thereby making the sale and transfer of the title valid.

## RULING:

1. The Supreme Court found that the variances in the signatures alone were inadequate to conclusively prove forgery. The Court held that forgery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and the petitioner's mere presentation of differing signatures was insufficient.

2. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's application of equitable estoppel, holding that since it was petitioner's conduct (negligently allowing his wife access to the title and related documents) that made the loss possible, he must bear the consequence.

3. Regarding the contention that the private respondent was an innocent purchaser for value, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The power of attorney was ruled as sufficient authorization for the property's sale due to its specific mention of the power to sell, despite being denoted as a general power of attorney. Since the private respondent had no reason to suspect any irregularity, she was deemed a buyer in good faith, and her purchase was upheld as valid.

## PRINCIPLES:

1. Presumption of Regularity: Notarized documents carry the presumption of their due execution, and serve as prima facie evidence of the facts they state.

2. Burden of Proof in Forgery Allegations: Forgery must be established through clear, positive, and convincing evidence.

3. Good Faith Purchaser: A purchaser in good faith is defined as one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property, and who pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase or before receiving any notice of another person’s claim.

4. Equitable Estoppel: This principle supports the position that the loss should be borne by the person whose conduct made it possible, particularly where it pertains to negligence in securing key property documents.

5. Special Power Included in General Power of Attorney: A general power of attorney can include a special power if it specifically enumerates such a power, like the authorization to sell a particular property.

These principles confirm theupholding of law in cases where due process, rightful ownership, and the sanctity of notarized documents are contested, while also emphasizing the responsibilities of property owners in safeguarding their interests.