5. Recio v Heirs of Sps.
Altamirano  Petitioner then offered to pay the remaining balance in the amount of
GR NO. 182349
July 24, 2013
Topic:
Petitioners: Reman Recio
Respondents: Heirs of Sps. Aguedo and Maria Altamirano
Ponente: Reyes, J.
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
 Nena, mother of Petitioner, leased from Respondents a parcel of land with
improvements in Lipa City, Batangas.
 The property has a land area of more or less 89.5 sqm and is found at the
northern portion of two parcels of land covered by two different TCTs.
 Respondents inherited the subject land from their deceased parents.
 Nena used the ground floor of the property as a retail store for grains while
the upper floor was used as the family’s residence.
 Petitioner then claimed that in 1988, Respondents offered to sell the
property to Nena for P500k. Nena then accepted the offer, which
prompted the Respondents to waive the rentals for the property.
 However, the sale did not materialize that time due to the fault of the
Respondents. Nonetheless, Nena continued to occupy and use the
property with the consent of the Respondents.
 Meanwhile, the Respondents consolidated the aforementioned parcels of
land and subdivided it into three parcels, which are known as Lots 1, 2, and
3. A new TCT was then issued to cover the subject property, which
Petitioner continued to enjoy. The subject property is now known as Lot 3.
 In 1994, Petitioner renewed Nena’s option to buy the subject property. He
entered into a series of negotiations with Respondent Alejandro, who
introduced himself as the representative of other heirs.
 After the negotiations, the Respondent, through Alejandro, entered into
an oral contract of sale with Petitioner over the subject property.
 In 1995, in view of the oral contract of sale, Petitioner made partial
payments to the Respondent in the total amount of P110k. Respondent
Alejandro received and acknowledged the payments, which is evidenced
by a receipt.
 After a few months, Petitioner again made another payment in the amount
of P50k, which Respondent Alejandro again received and acknowledged
through a receipt.
P340k but Respondent Alejandro kept on avoiding them. Hence, due to
this, Petitioner demanded from the Respondents, through Respondent
Alejandro, the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in exchange for the full
payment of the agreed price.
 Thus, Petitioner filed a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages.
Petitioner also caused to annotate on the TCT of the subject property a
Notice of Lis Pendens.
 Pending the return of service of summons to the Respondents, Petitioner
discovered that the subject property has been subsequently sold to
Respondent Lajarca. The old TCT was cancelled and a new TCT was issued
in the name of Respondent Lajarca by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed in
1998.
 Thus, petitioner filed an amended complaint impleading Respondent
Lajarca and adding as a cause of action the annulment of sale between
Respondents and Lajarca.
 RTC: Judgment rendered in favor of Petitioner. The sale between
Respondents and Lajarca is null and void. Lajarca appealed.
 CA: Affirmed the RTC. Contract of sale between Respondent and Petitioner
is valid. Petitioner is a co-owner with Lajarca over the property insofar as
the share corresponding to Respondent Alejandro’s. Insofar as the oral
contract of sale between Respondent Alejandro and Petitioner, Alejandro’s
disposition affects only his pro indiviso share, such that the Petitioner only
receives what corresponds to Alejandro’s undivided share. As to the
Lajarcas, the sale between them and the rest of the Respondents only
corresponds to the share of the latter. Thus, Petitioner and Lajarca are co-
owners. Petitioner appealed.
ISSUE:
W/N the CA erred in affirming the findings of the RTC?
HELD/RATIO:
The petition has no merit.
A valid contract of sale requires: (a) Meeting of the minds to transfer ownership in
exchange for a price; (b) the subject matter, which must be a possible thing; (c) the
price certain in money or its equivalent.
In this case, all elements are present. The records show that the Respondents were
the ones who offered to sell the property to Nena but it did not push through
because of the former’s fault. Thereafter, Petitioner renewed the option to purchase
to which Alejandro, as the Respondent’s representative, verbally agreed. The subject
matter is Lot 3 and the price agreed was P500k. IT cannot be denied that the oral
contract was valid.

However, the CA found out that it was only Alejandro who agreed to the sale. There
is no evidence to show that his co-owners consented to such sale. Hence, for want
of authority to sell Lot 3, CA ruled that Alejandro only showed his share of the
property to Petitioner.

Petitioner’s argument that Alejandro’s authority to represent his co-owners has no

merit. There is an express requirement under the Civil Code (Art. 1874 and 1878)
that there must be a written authority to sell an immovable property.

Petitioner can only apply the principle of apparent authority if he is able to prove the
acts of the Respondents, which justify his belief in Alejandro’s authority as an agent;
that the Respondents had knowledge of such actions; and that Petitioner relied upon
those acts and conducts with ordinary care and prudence.

In this case, there is no evidence on record that the Respondents acted in a way that
showed Alejandro having full authority. All that Petitioner relied on were acts that
happened after the sale to him. Absent the consent of Alejandro’s co-owners, the
Court holds that the sale between the other Respondents and Petitioner is null and
void. However, the sale between Respondent Alejandro and Petitioner is valid
insofar as Alejandro’s share is concerned. This then leaves the sale of the lot of the
other Respondents to Lajarca valid only insofar as their shares are concerned.

Wherefore, petition is denied. CA is affirmed.