1.

REMAN RECIO, v. HEIRS OF THE SPOUSES AGUEDO AND MARIA

ALTAMIRANO,

FACTS: 

This petition for review on certiorari seeks to modify the Decision2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) affirming with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The petitioner asks this Court to reinstate in full the said RTC decision.

In the 1950’s, Nena Recio, the mother of Reman Recio (petitioner), leased from the
respondents Altamiranos, a parcel of land with improvements. The Altamiranos
inherited the subject land from their deceased parents.

Nena used the ground floor of the subject property as a retail store for grains and the
upper floor as the family’s residence. The petitioner claimed that in 1988, the
Altamiranos offered to sell the subject property to Nena for Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00). The latter accepted such offer, which prompted the Altamiranos
to waive the rentals for the subject property. However, the sale did not materialize at
that time due to the fault of the Altamiranos. Nonetheless, Nena continued to occupy
and use the property with the consent of the Altamiranos.5

Meanwhile, the Altamiranos consolidated the two (2) parcels of land and were
eventually subdivided into three (3) parcels of land which were then denominated as
Lots 1, 2, and 3. The petitioner and his family remained in peaceful possession of Lot
No. 3.6

In the latter part of 1994, the petitioner renewed Nena’s option to buy the subject
property. The petitioner conducted a series of negotiations with respondent Alejandro
who introduced himself as representing the other heirs. After the said negotiations, the
Altamiranos through Alejandro entered into an oral contract of sale with the petitioner
over the subject property. In January 1995, in view of the said oral contract of sale, the
petitioner made partial payments to the Altamiranos. Subsequently, the petitioner
offered in many instances to pay the remaining balance of the agreed purchase price of
the subject property but Alejandro kept on avoiding the petitioner. Because of this, the
petitioner demanded from the Altamiranos, through Alejandro, the execution of a Deed
of Absolute Sale in exchange for the full payment of the agreed price.7

The petitioner discovered that the subject property has been subsequently sold to
respondents Lauro and Marcelina Lajarca (Spouses Lajarca).

Issue: Whether or not the verbal contract of sale between petitioner and the Alejandro
is valid.

Held:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA.

The CA ruled the contract of sale between Alejandro Altamirano and Reman Recio
is VALID only with respect to the aliquot share of Alejandro and The Deed of
Sale, dated February 26, 1998, between the Altamiranos and the Lajarca Spouses is
declared NULL and VOID as far as the aliquot share of Alejandro Altamirano. Petitioner
is DECLARED a co-owner of the Spouses Lajarca.

A valid contract of sale requires: (a) a meeting of minds of the parties to transfer
ownership of the thing sold in exchange for a price; (b) the subject matter, which must
be a possible thing; and (c) the price certain in money or its equivalent.22

It cannot be denied that the oral contract of sale entered into between the petitioner
and Alejandro was valid.

However, the CA found that it was only Alejandro who agreed to the sale. There is no
evidence to show that the other co-owners consented to Alejandro’s sale transaction
with the petitioner. Hence, for want of authority to sell Lot No. 3, the CA ruled that
Alejandro only sold his aliquot share of the subject property to the petitioner.
 5. IGLESIA FILIPINA INDEPENDIENTE vs. HEIRS of BERNARDINO TAEZA

This deals with the Petition for Review on Certiorari praying that the Decision  of the Court of
1

Appeals (CA), be reversed and set aside.

The plaintiff-appellee Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI), a duly registered religious corporation, was
the owner of a parcel of land described as Lot 3653 covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-
8698. The said lot is subdivided as follows: Lot Nos. 3653-A, 3653-B, 3653-C, and 3653-D.

On February 5, 1976, Lot Nos. 3653-A and 3653-B were sold by Rev. Macario Ga, in his capacity as
the Supreme Bishop of the plaintiff-appellee, to the defendant Bernardino Taeza, for the amount of
₱100,000.00, through installment, with mortgage to secure the payment of the balance.
Subsequently, the defendant allegedly completed the payments.

Meanwhile, the defendant Bernardino Taeza registered the subject parcels of land. Consequently,
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-77995 and T-77994 were issued in his name and occupied a
portion of the land.

A complaint for annulment of sale was again filed by the plaintiff-appellee IFI against the defendant-
appellant, with the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Branch 3.

On November 6, 2001, the court a quo rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee.  It held
1âwphi1

that the deed of sale executed by and between Rev. Ga and the defendant-appellant is null and
void.3

On June 30, 2006, the CA rendered its Decision reversing and setting aside the RTC Decision,
thereby dismissing the complaint.  The CA ruled that petitioner, being a corporation sole, validly
5

transferred ownership over the land in question through its Supreme Bishop, who was at the time the
administrator of all properties and the official representative of the church. It further held that "[t]he
authority of the then Supreme Bishop Rev. Ga to enter into a contract and represent the plaintiff-
appellee cannot be assailed, as there are no provisions in its constitution and canons giving the said
authority to any other person or entity."
6

ISSUE: Whether or not Supreme Bishop Rev. Ga is authorized to enter into a contract of sale in
behalf of petitioner.

The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The CA glossed over the fact of such opposition from the laymen's committee, 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. 12

The Court finds it erroneous for the CA to ignore the fact that the laymen's committee objected to the
sale of the lot in question. The Canons require that ALL the church entities listed in Article IV (a)
thereof should give its approval to the transaction.

Art. 1403. The contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified, (1) Those entered into in the
name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has
acted beyond his powers
15. SPOUSES CARMEN S. TONGSON AND JOSE C. TONGSON VS. EMERGENCY
PAWNSHOP BULA, INC. AND DANILO R. NAPALA

FACTS:
In May 1992, Napala offered to purchase from the Spouses Tongson their 364-square
meter parcel of land, situated in Davao City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 143020, for P3,000,000. Finding the offer acceptable, the Spouses Tongson
executed with Napala a Memorandum of Agreement[4] dated 8 May 1992.

On 2 December 1992, respondents' lawyer Atty. Petronilo A. Raganas, Jr. prepared a

Deed of Absolute Sale[5] indicating the consideration as only P400,000. When Carmen
Tongson "noticed that the consideration was very low, she [complained] and called the
attention of Napala but the latter told her not to worry as he would be the one to pay
for the taxes and she would receive the net amount of P3,000,000."[6]

Upon signing the Deed of Absolute Sale, Napala paid P200,000 in cash to the Spouses
Tongson and issued a postdated Philippine National Bank (PNB) check in the amount of
P2,800,000,[9] representing the remaining balance of the purchase price of the subject
property.

When presented for payment, the PNB check was dishonored for the reason "Drawn
Against Insufficient Funds."

Claiming that their consent was vitiated, the Spouses Tongson point out that Napala's
fraudulent representations of sufficient funds to pay for the property induced them into
signing the contract of sale. Such fraud, according to the Spouses Tongson, renders the
contract of sale void.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contract of sale is null and void.

Held: The SC ordered rescission of the sales contract.

However, while no causal fraud attended the execution of the sales contract, there is
fraud in its general sense when Napala issued the worthless check to the Spouses
Tongson, which is definitely not during the negotiation and perfection stages of the
sale. Rather, the fraud existed in the consummation stage of the sale when the parties
are in the process of performing their respective obligations under the perfected
contract of sale.
Respondents committed a substantial breach of their reciprocal obligation, entitling the
Spouses Tongson to the rescission of the sales contract.