> IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE &, HEIRS OF BERNARDINO TAFZA G.R. No, 179597, 3 February 2014, THIRD DIVISION, (Peralta) When a comic of sale is ered nt by the bad of corporation seb dil mat il te erpration ie ra ad regen maging and abimaing a prep — cordance wit Ss 113 ofthe Coporato Ca the bai dxdt hae ated bod is Powr and suc cantra of slit comida Supreme Bishop Macario Ga (Rev. Ga) of Iglesia Filipina Independiente A sold one of the low owned by IFI to Biewenido de Guzman. Ree. Ga likewise sold rwo other lots of IFI 10 Bernardino Taera with moryage to secure the payment of the balance. Afer sometime, a complaint for the annulment of ‘he Deed of Sale with Mortgage wa ied by the Ptish Counel of Tuguegaraa, (Cagayan against Re. Ga and Taeza, However, ie was subsequenty dismissed for the lack of personality file the case. Subsequently, IF, through Supeeme Bishop Soliman Ganno, fied a complaint fr anaslment ofthe sale ofthe patcelsof land ‘gaint Rex. Ga and Taera butt was also dismissed. Years aftr, a complaint for snnlment of sale was again ed by IF agains theirs of Tava. The Regional ‘Til Court (RTO) rendered judgement in favor of the IFT. Ke hed that the deed of| sale executed by and berween Rev. Ga and the Taeza saul nd void, The Court ‘of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC ruling, Hence, this petition, ISSUE: 1s Supreme Bishop Ret. Ga auchorzed to ener nto a contact of sale ia ‘behalf of the FE? RULING:FEBRUARY CASES us Supreme Bishop Rex. Ga did not follow the rules and regulations of TFL pertaining to acquisition and alienation of the latter's property, as required ‘under Sec. 113 of the Corporation Code which makes the subject contract of sale unenforceable as per Art. 1403 of the New Civil Code. Evidently, under IFTs Canons, any sale of teal property requires rot just the consent of the Supreme Bishop but also the concurrence oF the laymer’s committe, the parish priest, and the Diocesan Bishop, as sanctioned by the Supreme Counci, However, Fs Canons do not specify in what form the conformity of the other church entities should be made known. Thus, as IFTs ‘witness stated, in practice, such consent of approval may be assumed as a matter of fact, unless some opposition is expressed. Here, the trial court found that the laymen's committee indeed made its objection to the sale known to the Supreme Bishop. The CA, on the other hand, slossed over the fact of such opposition from the laymen's committe, opining that the consent of the Supreme Bishop to the sale was sufficient, especially since the parish priest and the Diocesan Bishop voiced no objection to the sale. The ‘Court finds it erroneous for the CA to ignore the fact thatthe laymen’s committee objected to the sale of the lot in question, The Canons require that ALL. che church entities listed in Article IV (a) thereof should give its approval to the transaction. Thus, when the Supreme Bishop executed the contrict of sale of IE Jot despite the opposition made by the laymen's committee, he acted beyond his powers This case clearly fills under the category of unenforeeable contracts mentioned in Article 1403, paragraph (1) of the Civil Code, Inthe present case however, the heirs’ predecessor in-interest, Bernardino ‘Taeza, had already obtained a transfer certificate of tite in his name over the property in question, Since the person supposedly transferring ownership was 90% ‘authorized to do so, the property had evidently been acquired by mistake. In Vda. de Ewonde » Conrt of Appeals, the Court affirmed the trial couet’s ruling that the applicable provision of law in such cases is Article 1456 of the Civil Code. UST LAW LAW REVIEW, VOL. LVIII, NO. 2, APRIL 2014