Dear Attorney,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to seek your legal expertise regarding a matter involving a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) under which I have been authorized to act on behalf of my principal. The SPA grants me the authority “to sign for and in behalf of my principal all documents that are necessary” for the transfer of a real property title to their name. Unfortunately, my principal is currently stranded in the United States and will not return to the Philippines until January 2025. Given this situation, I need to know if I, as the attorney-in-fact, can execute an affidavit of loss in their stead under the authority granted by the SPA.

Your advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Representative

Comprehensive Legal Analysis: Executing an Affidavit of Loss under a Special Power of Attorney

Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) serves as a binding instrument that allows one person (the principal) to delegate specific authority to another (the attorney-in-fact). The scope of authority conferred by the SPA must be clearly stated, and the attorney-in-fact may only perform acts within the bounds of this authority. The question at hand involves determining whether an attorney-in-fact, under the provisions of a notarized SPA, may validly execute an affidavit of loss on behalf of their principal.

Key Provisions of Philippine Law

Nature and Scope of the Special Power of Attorney

Under Article 1878 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, certain acts require a Special Power of Attorney, including:

To make payments that are not part of the ordinary administration of the principal’s business.
To create or convey real rights over immovable property.
To bind the principal as a guarantor or surety.
To enter into any contract by which the ownership of a thing is transmitted or acquired.
To make gifts, except customary ones for charity or family.

The authority granted under an SPA is strictly construed, meaning the attorney-in-fact may only perform the specific acts enumerated in the document.

Definition and Use of an Affidavit of Loss

An affidavit of loss is a sworn statement executed by a person to declare the loss of a document, property, or other item. It is a standard requirement in administrative transactions to inform concerned parties of the loss and initiate the process for obtaining a replacement or proceeding with a substitute action.

While affidavits of loss are generally executed by the person who experienced the loss, legal representatives may execute such affidavits if authorized by the principal or applicable law.

Analysis of the Situation

Authority under the SPA
- The SPA in question explicitly states that the attorney-in-fact is authorized “to sign for and in behalf of my principal all documents that are necessary” for the transfer of the real property title. This language is broad and includes the execution of documents incidental to the transaction, such as an affidavit of loss, if the need arises.
- The phrase “all documents that are necessary” implies that the attorney-in-fact has discretionary authority to determine what documents are required to complete the task. If the affidavit of loss is deemed necessary for the title transfer, the attorney-in-fact may execute it within the bounds of the SPA.
Relevance of an Affidavit of Loss to Title Transfers
- In real property transactions, an affidavit of loss may be necessary if critical documents required for the transfer (e.g., a deed of sale, original certificate of title, or tax clearance) are misplaced or destroyed.
- The execution of such an affidavit ensures compliance with administrative and procedural requirements, such as notifying the Register of Deeds or other government offices about the missing document.
Limitations under Philippine Law
- While the SPA grants authority to execute necessary documents, it does not explicitly state authority to perform acts unrelated to the property transfer. The execution of an affidavit of loss, if not directly tied to the transaction, could be construed as beyond the scope of authority.
- The Civil Code emphasizes strict interpretation of SPAs, requiring any ambiguity to be resolved in favor of limiting the attorney-in-fact’s authority. Thus, the attorney-in-fact should ensure that the affidavit is directly relevant to the title transfer.
Potential Risks and Mitigation
- Challenge to Validity: If the affidavit is contested, the attorney-in-fact must demonstrate that executing it was necessary for the transaction and fell within the scope of authority.
- Additional Documentation: To mitigate risks, the attorney-in-fact may supplement the affidavit with a notarized statement clarifying their authority to execute it under the SPA.

Practical Considerations and Recommendations

Examine the SPA in Detail
- Review the exact wording of the SPA to confirm the scope of authority. If the SPA is silent on executing affidavits, consider seeking supplemental authorization from the principal, even if remote.
- Ensure that the affidavit explicitly states the principal’s name and explains the attorney-in-fact’s authority to act on their behalf.
Notarization and Registration
- To strengthen the affidavit’s credibility, have it notarized. This formalizes the document and provides it with greater evidentiary weight in administrative and judicial proceedings.
Coordinate with Concerned Agencies
- Inform the Register of Deeds, Bureau of Internal Revenue, or other relevant offices about the affidavit of loss and ensure it complies with their procedural requirements.
- If the affidavit pertains to a lost original certificate of title, secure a certified true copy and file a petition for reissuance in court.

Legal Precedents and References

Case Law
- Jurisprudence confirms that attorneys-in-fact must act strictly within the bounds of their authority (e.g., Del Rosario v. People, G.R. No. 169435). Courts have invalidated actions taken beyond the scope of an SPA.
- Affidavits executed by authorized representatives have been upheld when the representative’s authority is clear and unambiguous (Laguna Estates Development Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 118784).
Administrative Guidelines
- The Land Registration Authority (LRA) and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) have specific requirements for affidavits of loss in property transactions. The attorney-in-fact should verify compliance with these guidelines to avoid delays.

Conclusion

Based on the information provided, the attorney-in-fact may execute an affidavit of loss on behalf of their principal if it is necessary for the transfer of title and clearly within the scope of authority granted by the SPA. However, given the strict interpretation of SPAs under Philippine law, it is advisable to:

Ensure the affidavit’s necessity for the transaction.
Confirm the attorney-in-fact’s authority explicitly covers such acts.
Adhere to all procedural requirements to prevent disputes.

If uncertainty persists, obtaining supplemental authorization or legal counsel would safeguard the validity of the affidavit and the title transfer process.