G.R. No. 182349, July 24, 2013
Topics: contract of sale; sale of co-owned land
Summary:
Petitioner purchased a parcel of land from one of the co-owners who represented the other co-owners without authority.
Doctrines:
A valid contract of sale requires: (a) a meeting of minds of the parties to transfer ownership of the thing sold in exchange for a price; (b) the subject matter, which must be a possible thing; and (c) the price certain in money or its equivalent.
Facts:
In the 1950’s, Nena Recio (Nena), the mother of Reman Recio (petitioner), leased from the respondents Alejandro, Adelaida, Catalina, Alfredo, Francisco, all surnamed Altamirano, Violeta Altamirano Olfato, and Loreto Altamirano Vda. De Maralit (referred to as the Altamiranos) a parcel of land with improvements. The Altamiranos inherited the subject land from their deceased parents, the spouses Aguedo Altamirano and Maria Valduvia.
Nena used the ground floor of the subject property as a retail store for grains and the upper floor as the family’s residence. The petitioner claimed that in 1988, the Altamiranos offered to sell the subject property to Nena for Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). The latter accepted such offer, which prompted the Altamiranos to waive the rentals for the subject property. However, the sale did not materialize at that time due to the fault of the Altamiranos. Nonetheless, Nena continued to occupy and use the property with the consent of the Altamiranos.
Meanwhile, the Altamiranos consolidated the two (2) parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 66009 and 66010. They were eventually subdivided into three (3) parcels of land which were then denominated as Lots 1, 2, and 3. The petitioner and his family remained in peaceful possession of Lot No. 3.
In the latter part of 1994, the petitioner renewed Nena’s option to buy the subject property. The petitioner conducted a series of negotiations with respondent Alejandro who introduced himself as representing the other heirs.
After the said negotiations, the Altamiranos through Alejandro entered into an oral contract of sale with the petitioner over the subject property.
In January 1995, in view of the said oral contract of sale, the petitioner made partial payments to the Altamiranos in the total amount of One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P110,000.00). Alejandro duly received and acknowledged these partial payments as shown in a receipt dated January 24, 1995.
On April 14, 1995, the petitioner made another payment in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), which Alejandro again received and acknowledged through a receipt of the same date. Subsequently, the petitioner offered in many instances to pay the remaining balance of the agreed purchase price of the subject property in the amount of Three Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (P340,000.00), but Alejandro kept on avoiding the petitioner.
Because of this, the petitioner demanded from the Altamiranos, through Alejandro, the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in exchange for the full payment of the agreed price.
Thus, on February 24, 1997, the petitioner filed a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages.
Pending the return of service of summons to the Altamiranos, the petitioner discovered that the subject property has been subsequently sold to respondents Lauro and Marcelina Lajarca.
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, declaring as NULL AND VOID the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 26 February 1998 between the defendants Altamiranos and the defendants Lajarcas covering that parcel of land together with all improvements
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision with modification, declaring the contract of sale between Alejandro Altamirano and Reman Recio VALID only with respect to the aliquot share of Alejandro Altamirano.
Issue: Whether the CA gravely and seriously erred in modifying the RTC decision.
Ruling:
NO. At the core of the present petition is the validity of the verbal contract of sale between Alejandro and the petitioner; and the Deed of Absolute Sale between the Altamiranos and the Spouses Lajarca involving the subject property.
A valid contract of sale requires: (a) a meeting of minds of the parties to transfer ownership of the thing sold in exchange for a price; (b) the subject matter, which must be a possible thing; and (c) the price certain in money or its equivalent.
In the instant case, all these elements are present. The records disclose that the Altamiranos were the ones who offered to sell the property to Nena but the transaction did not push through due to the fault of the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner renewed Nena’s option to purchase the property to which Alejandro, as the representative of the Altamiranos verbally agreed.
The determinate subject matter is Lot No. 3, which is covered under TCT No. T-102563 and located at No. 39 10 de Julio Street (now Esteban Mayo Street), Lipa City, Batangas. The price agreed for the sale of the property was Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). It cannot be denied that the oral contract of sale entered into between the petitioner and Alejandro was valid.
However, the CA found that it was only Alejandro who agreed to the sale. There is no evidence to show that the other co-owners consented to Alejandro’s sale transaction with the petitioner. Hence, for want of authority to sell Lot No. 3, the CA ruled that Alejandro only sold his aliquot share of the subject property to the petitioner.
Articles 1874 and 1878 of the Civil Code explicitly provide:
Art. 1874. When a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void.
Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney are necessary in the following cases:
x x x x
(5) To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration;
The petitioner insists that the authority of Alejandro to represent his co-heirs in the contract of sale entered into with the petitioner had been adequately proven during the trial. He alleges that the other Altamiranos are deemed to have knowledge of the contract of sale entered into by Alejandro with the petitioner since all of them, either personally or through their authorized representatives participated in the sale transaction with the Spouses Lajarca involving the same property covered by TCT No. T-102563.
In fact, said TCT even contained a notice of lis pendens which should have called their attention that there was a case involving the property. Moreover, the petitioner points out that Alejandro represented a considerable majority of the co-owners as can be observed from other transaction and documents, i.e., three (3) Deeds of Sale executed in favor of the Spouses Lajarca and the two other buyers of the parcels of land co-owned by the Altamiranos.
The petitioner’s contentions are untenable. Given the expressed requirement under the Articles 1874 and 1878 of the Civil Code that there must be a written authority to sell an immovable property, the petitioner’s arguments must fail. It was a finding that need not be disturbed that Alejandro had no authority from his co-owners to sell the subject property.