G.R. No. 177656 - LINDA UY LIM, VS. HELEN O. TONG, PHILIP ONG, PROPMECH CORPRATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, EULOGIO SAREMO, SR., AND ATTY. ELMER D. LASTIMOSA, EX-OFFICIO PROVINCIAL SHERIFF.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismissed petitioner's complaint. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. [15] On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed [16] the trial court's decision. Her Motion for Reconsideration [17] having been denied, [18] petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, [19] alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in I . . . UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE SPURIOUS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND THE CONSEQUENT REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE SETTLED PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL. II X X X IN UPHOLDING THE COURT A QUO'S FINDINGS THAT THE PARAPHERNAL PROPERTY OF THE PETTITIONER-APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO THE ALLEGED PERSONAL DEBT OF HER ESTRANGED HUSBAND ABSENT ANY PROOF THAT THE SAME REDOUNDED TO THE FAMILY'S BENEFIT. III X X X IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. [20] (Underscoring supplied) Fraud is never presumed, and intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right or in some manner injure him must be specifically alleged and proved by the plaintiff by clear and convincing evidence. [21] By petitioner's admission, she read the SPA before signing it. [22] She is a college graduate [23] who had worked as a Regional Operations Clerk of Metrobank. [24] It is inconceivable that she did not understand the contents of what she was signing. In fact, her allegation in her complaint that she agreed to sign the SPA believing that the "intention and purpose behind the same was to secure a loan with which to build the house that [she] had long dreamed of to be erected [on] the lot in question" [25] confirms that she agreed to authorize the attorneys-in-fact to perform the acts therein enumerated including encumbering the property by way of mortgage. That petitioner and her husband indeed obtained and received the proceeds of a P400,000 loan, respondents were able to prove via testimonial and documentary evidence: [ATTY. VILLACARLOS] Q: Mr. Witness [EULOGIO SAREMO, JR., FINANCIAL CONSULTANT OF PROPMECH CORPORATION], aside from the special power of attorney which was executed by the spouses Saturnino Lim and Linda Lim, what other proofs do you have of the indebtedness of Amay Lim with respect to Propmech Corporation and the other defendants? A: The spouses once approached me way back in the middle part of 1994 and they were asking from the company some assistance because they would be constructing a house. [26] x x x x Q: Do you know how much is the money being borrowed by the spouses? A: I think it is approximately P400,000.00 to P500,000.00 or thereabouts. That was the agreed amount. Q: What is your proof as far as this remittance of P400,000.00 to P500,000.00 is concerned? A: Several checks [27] were made to the order of Ms. Linda Lim sometime in April, May, June and up to October 1995. Series of checks were presented and delivered to Linda Lim. x x x x Q: I am also showing to you certain deposit slips [28] for a savings account. Can you please tell us what relation have these