Alcantara v. Nido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Revelen N. Srivastava, through her attorney-in-fact and daughter Brigida L. Nido (respondent), owned an unregistered land. Petitioners Spouses Alcantara and Spouses Rubi offered to purchase a 200-square meter portion of the lot at ₱200 per square meter. They paid a downpayment of ₱3,000 and subsequently occupied the lot, constructing their houses. With respondent's consent, they occupied an additional 150 square meters. By 1987, petitioners had paid ₱17,500 but defaulted on subsequent installment payments. Procedural History: On May 11, 1994, respondent, as attorney-in-fact for Revelen, filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages and preliminary injunction against petitioners. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that the oral contract to sell was void due to the lack of written authority for the sale of land by an agent, ordering mutual restitution and payment of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, dismissing the case, holding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to the assessed value of the property falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) under Republic Act No. 7691. The CA also reiterated that the contract was void. The Petition: Petitioners sought review of the CA's decision, arguing that the contract was merely voidable and that they were entitled to specific performance. They also questioned the CA's ruling on the contract's validity.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellate court gravely erred in ruling that the contract entered into by respondent, in representation of her daughter, and petitioners is void. Whether the appellate court erred in not ruling that the petitioners are entitled to their counterclaims, particularly specific performance. Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 78215 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the void nature of the contract: The Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that the contract to sell was void. Article 1874 of the Civil Code explicitly requires that the authority of an agent to sell a piece of land or any interest therein must be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void. The records showed no proof of respondent's written authority to sell the lot. Petitioners themselves admitted during pre-trial that they initially believed respondent was the owner, only learning Revelen was the owner during the proceedings. This lack of written authority renders the sale void ab initio, producing no legal effect. A void contract cannot be ratified, and it cannot be the subject of rescission or specific performance. On the entitlement to specific performance: Petitioners are not entitled to specific performance. For specific performance to be granted for a contract made with an agent, the agency must be established by clear and certain proof. As there was a clear absence of proof that Revelen authorized respondent in writing to sell her lot, the agency required for such a transaction was not sufficiently established. Therefore, no valid contract was perfected, and consequently, petitioners could not validly acquire the lot through specific performance. On the jurisdiction of the RTC: The Court affirmed the appellate court's finding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. Under Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, Municipal Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property where the assessed value does not exceed ₱20,000 (or ₱50,000 in Metro Manila). The assessed value of the entire lot was ₱4,890, as stated in Tax Declaration No. 09-0742. This assessed value falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. Therefore, the RTC had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case, rendering its proceedings and decision void. The dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction is proper, as jurisdiction is conferred by law and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
Main Doctrine
A sale of a piece of land or any interest therein through an agent is void if the agent's authority is not in writing, as explicitly required by Article 1874 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, a General Power of Attorney executed and acknowledged in a foreign country cannot be admitted in evidence unless certified in accordance with the Rules of Court by an officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in that country.