RECIO VS.

HEIRS OF ARGUEDA
G.R. No. 182349               July 24, 2013
FACTS:
Nena Recio, mother of Reman Recio leased from the Altamiranos a parcel of land with
improvements. The Altamiranos inherited the subject land from their deceased parents, the
spouses Aguedo Altamirano and Maria Vaduvia. The sale of the land to Nena Recio did not
materialize. The Altamiranos consolidated the two parcels of land covered by the TCT and
subdivided into 3 parcels of lands. Reman and his family remained in the peaceful possession
of Lot 3. He renewed Nena’s option to buy the subject property. They conducted negotiations
with Alejandro who introduced himself as representing the other heirs. After which, the
Altamiranos through Alejandro entered into an oral contract of sale with the petitioner and made
partial payments which Alejandro received.  Then, the petitioner offered to pay the remaining
balance, but Alejandro kept on avoiding the petitioner. Recio filed a case and while its pending,
it was discovered that the property was sold to respondents Spouses Lajarca.

The RTC ruled that the Absolute Sale between Altamiranos and the Lajarcas was Null and Void,
but the Court of Appeals modified that the sale between Alejandro and Recio is valid only with
respect to the aliquot share of Alejandro. CA held that Alejandro’s sale of Not. No. 3 did not bind
his co-owners because a sale of real property by one purporting to be an agent of the owner
without any written authority from the latter is null and void. An SPA from co-owners pursuant to
Art 1878 of the NCC is necessary.

ISSUE:
Is there a perfected contract of sale?

RULING:
In the instant case shows no evidence on record of specific acts which the Altamiranos made
before tile sale of the subject property to the petitioner, indicating that they fully knew of the
representation of Alejandro. All that the petitioner relied upon 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 Altamiranos and the petitioner is null and void. But as held by the appellate court, the
sale between the petitioner and Alejandro is valid insofar as the aliquot share of respondent
Alejandro is concerned. Being a co-owner, Alejandro can validly and legally dispose of his share
even without the consent of all the other co-heirs. Since the balance of the full price has not yet
been paid, the amount paid shall represent as payment to his aliquot share. This then leaves
the sale of the lot of the Altamiranos to the Spouses Lajarca valid only insofar as their shares
are concerned, exclusive of the aliquot part of Alejandro, as ruled by the CA. The Court finds no
reversible error with the decision of the CA in all respects.