A Special Power of Attorney automatically ends with the death of the person who granted it, and any acts carried out by the agent afterward are void, unless covered by narrow exceptions under the law, the Supreme Court held.
In a 13-page decision promulgated on May 7, 2025, the SC’s third division, through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, held that Jessica Alova Uberas lost her authority to act on behalf of her father, Meliton, upon his death in 1998, as the SPA had already been terminated.
Concurring with the decision were Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Samuel Gaerlan, and Japar Dimaampao.
Court records showed Meliton authorized her daughter, through an SPA in 1998, to manage his property.
He died later that year but his daughter continued to use the SPA in 2003 to secure a credit line from San Miguel Foods Inc. through a mortgage on her late father’s property.
However, when she failed to pay San Miguel, the latter decided to foreclose her property.
Both the Bacolod City Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that Meliton’s death ended the SPA.
But the RTC found that since the SPA had the conformity of Meliton’s wife, Felicidad, the mortgage was valid regarding her share of the conjugal property.
On the other hand, the CA held that the mortgage was invalid as it was not executed on behalf of the spouses.
San Miguel appealed the case to the SC, which partly ruled in its favor, affirming the termination of the SPA but validating the mortgage and foreclosure sale with respect to Jessica’s undivided share in the property.
In its ruling, the high court explained that under the SPA, a principal authorizes an agent to act on his or her behalf in transactions with a third party.
It added that SPA is “personal, representative, and derivative,” and it ends upon the death of the principal or the agent.
“Thus, any act by the agent subsequent to the principal’s death is void ab initio, unless the act fell under the exceptions established under Article 1930 and 1931 of the Civil Code,” the SC ruling said.
The two exceptions are when the agency is for the parties’ common interest, and, when the agent, unaware of the death or the agency’s end, contracted with a third party in good faith.
The SC said there was no showing these exceptions were applicable in the case, as Jessica was fully aware of her father’s death, and the SPA was not made for their mutual benefit.
“Hence, Meliton’s death effectively extinguished the agency between Meliton and Jessica. As for Felicidad, she cannot likewise be bound under the SPA. Notably, she was not the one who executed the SPA in favor of Jessica; she merely gave her marital conformity. Under the principles of agency, Felicidad cannot be considered as principal,” the SC added.
The high court, however, ruled that the mortgage and foreclosure were not entirely void as Jessica automatically became a co-owner of the property after her father’s death.
The SC explained that when she signed the mortgage, she encumbered her share in the property to secure her obligation with San Miguel; thus, the mortgage and foreclosure were valid only for her share in the property as a legal heir of Meliton.
