G.R. Nos. 148404-05, 11 April 2002


Sps. Bacaling were the owners of 3 parcels of land in Iloilo City. Thereafter, the landholding was subdivided into 110 sub-lots. A real estate loan of 600k was granted to Sps. Bacaling by the GSIS. To secure the repayment of the loan, Sps. Bacalings executed in favor of the GSIS a real estate mortgage over their parcels of land including the 110 sub-lots. Sps. Bacaling failed to pay the amortizations on the loan and consequently the mortgage constituted on the 110 sub-lots was foreclosed by the GSIS.

Therafter, Nelita Bacaling (widow of Ramon Bacaling) was eventually able to restore to herself the ownership of the 110 sub-lots. Muya et al, sowed the lots as if the same were their own, and altered the roads, drainage, boundaries and monuments established thereon. Muya et al claimed that they were legally instituted by Sps. Bacaling’s administrator as tenant-tillers of the land. After some time, their relationship with the landowner was changed to one of leasehold. They delivered their rental payments to Bacaling as agricultural lessor. In 1980, they secured certificates of land transfer in their names for the 110 sub-lots.

Nelita Bacaling was able to register the subject property with the National Housing Authority and obtained therefrom a license to sell the subject 110 sub-lots. Tong et al. bought from Nelita Bacaling the subject 110 sub-lots. The sale was effected after Bacaling has repurchased the subject property from the GSIS. To secure performance of the contract of absolute sale and facilitate the transfer of title of the lost to Tong, Bacaling appointed Tong as her attorney-in-fact, under an IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY.

10 years after the perfection and execution of the sale, Bacaling filed a complaint to nullify the contract of sale. Thereafter, Tong together with Bacaling filed a petition for cancellation of the certificates of land transfer against Muya et al. DAR dismissed the petition. Appeal was filed but was rejected.

Office of the President reversed DAR. Muya et al appealed to the CA but before the petition was resolved, Nelita Bacaling manifested to the CA that she was revoking the irrevocable power of attorney in favor of Tong and that she was admitting Muya and the others as her tenants. CA reversed OP.


Whether Bacaling can revoke the irrevocable power of attorney executed.


No. Bacaling cannot revoke at her whim and pleasure the irrevocable special power of attorney which she had duly executed in favor of petitioner Jose Juan Tong and duly acknowledged before a notary public. The agency, to stress, is one coupled with interest which is explicitly irrevocable since the deed of agency was prepared and signed and/or accepted by Tong and Bacaling with a view to completing the performance of the contract of sale.

The fiduciary relationship inherent in ordinary contracts of agency is replaced by material consideration which in the type of agency herein established bars the removal or dismissal of petitioner Tong as Bacaling’s attorney-in-fact on the ground of alleged loss of trust and confidence.

*Case digest by April Rose B. Tuanda, JD – 4, Andres Bonifacio College, SY 2019 – 2020