Recio v. Altamirano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Nena Recio leased a parcel of land with improvements from the Altamiranos. In 1988, the Altamiranos offered to sell the property to Nena, but the sale did not materialize. Nena continued to occupy the property with consent. In 1994, petitioner Reman Recio renewed the option to buy. An oral contract of sale was entered into between petitioner and Alejandro Altamirano, representing the heirs. Petitioner made partial payments totaling ₱160,000.00. Alejandro acknowledged these payments. Petitioner repeatedly offered to pay the balance of ₱340,000.00, but Alejandro avoided him. Petitioner demanded the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale. Procedural History: On February 24, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages. A Notice of Lis Pendens was annotated on the title. Petitioner discovered the property was sold to Spouses Lajarca. An Amended Complaint impleading the Spouses Lajarca and seeking annulment of their sale was filed. The RTC declared the Deed of Absolute Sale between Altamiranos and Spouses Lajarca null and void, ordered the cancellation of TCT No. T-112727 and reinstatement of TCT No. T-102563, directed the Altamiranos to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of petitioner upon full payment, and awarded damages. The CA affirmed with modification, dismissing the complaint against other Altamiranos, declaring the contract of sale between Alejandro and petitioner valid only for Alejandro's aliquot share, declaring the Deed of Sale between Altamiranos and Spouses Lajarca null and void only as to Alejandro's aliquot share, and declaring petitioner a co-owner with Spouses Lajarca. The CA affirmed the damages awarded. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to reinstate the RTC decision in full, arguing the CA erred in modifying the RTC decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely and seriously erred in modifying the Regional Trial Court decision. Whether the oral contract of sale between petitioner and Alejandro Altamirano is valid and binding on all co-owners, and the effect of the lack of written authority from the other co-owners. Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale between the Altamiranos and the Spouses Lajarca is valid, considering the prior sale to the petitioner and the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 86001 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the modification of the RTC decision: The Court found no reversible error in the CA's decision to modify the RTC ruling. The CA correctly applied the principles of co-ownership and the requirement for written authority in the sale of immovable property. The petitioner's contention that the other Altamiranos had knowledge of the sale to him, as evidenced by the Notice of Lis Pendens and their subsequent sale to the Spouses Lajarca, did not negate the absence of a written SPA. The burden of proof to establish agency rests on the party alleging it, and reliance on mere oral assurances or subsequent acts without prior written authority is at the petitioner's peril. The CA's decision, which recognized the validity of Alejandro's sale of his aliquot share and the Spouses Lajarca's purchase of the other co-owners' shares, was deemed a proper resolution of the conflicting claims. On the validity of the oral contract of sale and the authority of Alejandro Altamirano: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that a valid contract of sale existed between petitioner and Alejandro Altamirano, encompassing all elements of a contract of sale: meeting of the minds, determinate subject matter (Lot No. 3), and a certain price (₱500,000.00). However, the Court reiterated that for the sale of immovable property through an agent, the agent's authority must be in writing, as mandated by Articles 1874 and 1878 of the Civil Code. Since there was no written Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from the other co-owners authorizing Alejandro to sell their shares, his sale of Lot No. 3 did not bind them. Consequently, Alejandro could only validly sell his own aliquot share in the property. The payments made by the petitioner were deemed to apply to Alejandro's aliquot share. On the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale between the Altamiranos and the Spouses Lajarca: The Court upheld the CA's ruling that the Deed of Sale between the Altamiranos and the Spouses Lajarca was valid only with respect to the aliquot shares of the Altamiranos who executed the sale, excluding Alejandro's share. This was because the Spouses Lajarca were not considered buyers in good faith, having knowledge of the prior sale to the petitioner, evidenced by the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens on the title. Therefore, the Spouses Lajarca acquired only the shares of the selling Altamiranos, and the petitioner, having acquired Alejandro's share, became a co-owner with the Spouses Lajarca.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner can validly dispose of their aliquot share in a property even without the consent of other co-owners, but a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without written authority from the others is void with respect to the shares of the other co-owners.