Philippine National Bank vs. Tan Ong Zse, Vda. de Tan Toco

Philippine National Bank Vs. Tan Ong Zse, Vda. De Tan Toco Facts: PNB filed an appeal from the judgment of the CFI of Iloilo dismissing their complaint against Tan Ong Zse Vda. De Tan Toco fo a sum of money plus interest, and in case of failure to pay the amount of judgment, the mortgaged property be sold at public auction, and in case of insufficiency thereof, a writ of attachment be issued against other property of defendant not exempt from execution. Tan Ong Zse obtained a loan of 300,000 from PNB, with interest at 8% and this was secured by a property mortgaged. However, Tan Ong Ze had not paid her obligation, prompting the Bank to file a complaint to recover the sum of money in the CFI of Iloilo. PNB contend that evidence shows that Tan Bunco or Mariano de la Rama Tan Bunco was empowered to administer and mortgage the property of Tan Ong Zse and that the Promissory Note and the mortgage deed are obligations contracted by Tan Ong Zse To the PNB through M. De la Rama Tan Bunco, her attorney-in-fact. The CFI ruled in favor of Tan Ong Zse prompting PNB to file the present appeal. Issue: WON there exists a power of attorney fro. tan Ong Zse to Tan Bunco to administer and mortgage the property belonging to her Ruling: The only evidence presented by PNB to prove the existence of such power of attorney is the original certificate of title, issued to tan Ong Zse, on the back of which, there is a memorandum which notes the power of attorney executed in favor of Tan Bunco to mortgage and administer the property. If the original certificate of title is no other than the transcript of the decree of redemption made in the registration book, then the notations or memoranda on the back thereeof are not admissible as proof of the contents of the documents to which they refer, inasmuch as they do not form part of the contents of the decree of registration. The notations or memoranda are proof of existence of the transactions and judicial orders noted, which affect the registered land, it presentation to the registrar, its entry in the registry and a notice to the whole world of such fact. The memorandum of a power of attorney noted on the back of an Original Certificate of Title is not ad issible as proof of the contents of said power of attorney, but only of the fact of its execution. The power of attorney itself was not presented in this case as evidence, so the case be reopened and remanded.