Notarized Authority To Sell

In the case of LEONCIA MANUEL & MARINA S. MUDLONG, Petitioner - versus  - LEONOR SARMIENTO, Respondent (Third Division, G.R. No. 173857, March 21, 2012), among the main issues raised is : whether or not the notarized exclusive authority to sell granted to respondent is valid.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals was correct in stating thus:

"The trial court correctly found that the authority to sell executed by Marina in favor of Leonor was validly executed. First, Leonor's authority to sell was notarized. Thus, there is a presumption that it had been validly executed. A notarized document has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and can be contradicted only by clear and convincing evidence. Second, while insisting that the authority to sell form had been blank when she signed it, Marina does not deny the genuineness of her signature thereon. Third, the authority to sell presented by Leonor to Marina was a pre-printed form, with the title "Authority to Sell" clearly spelled out on top of the document.  Even if it were true that the details of the form were not yet inserted therein when Marina signed it, she knew, or should have known, from its title, that she had signed an authority to sell in favor of Leonor. Thus, her having signed it in blank was an implied authorization for Leonor to fill it up according to their agreement. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence that Marina and Leonor had an agreement different from that appearing in the signed authority to sell, it is presumed that the signed contract embodies their complete and true agreement. The presumption of regularity, the evidentiary weight conferred upon public documents with respect to its execution, as well as the statements and the authenticity of the signatures thereon, therefore, stand."