G. R. No.

157493

JOSEFINA, ROLANDO, FERNANDO, ERNESTO, LEONORA, BIBIANO, JR.,

LIBRADO and ENRIQUETA, all surnamed OESMER
vs.
PARAISO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Facts:
Eight Petitioners , who were brothers and sisters, are co-owners of
the undivided shares of two parcels of agricultural land and
tenanted land. Both lots are unregistered and originally owned by
their parents and upon their death the petitioners acquired the lots
due to succession. Respondent Paraiso Development is Known in
real estate business and a Contract to Sell was executed between
Paraiso and Ernesto, one of the siblings, to sell the land however
two out of eight siblings (Adolfo and Jesus, did not sign). Later on,
petitioners filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity or for
Annulment of option agreement or contract to sell with damages
alleging that Ernesto did not have the authority to sign nor
represent his siblings in the said contracts he is not their agent.

Petitioners assert that the signatures of five of them namely:

Enriqueta, Librado, Rizalino, Bibiano, Jr., and Leonora, on the
margins of the supposed Contract to Sell did not give authority on
Ernesto as agent to sell their respective shares in the questioned
properties, and hence, for lack of written authority from his
siblings to sell their respective shares in the subjected land.

Issue:
Whether or not Ernesto had the authority to act as an agent to his
siblings on the contract to sell their shares in the land

Ruling:
No, Article 1874 of the Civil Code provides ‘When a sale of a
piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the
authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall
be void.’ In this case the written authority thereof was given
through the contract to sell where the siblings affixed their
signatures. However this only made the contract valid but does not
confer that Ernesto is an agent to his siblings or the existence to
any principal-agent relationship between the five petitioners and
Ernesto as to the sale of the subject parcels of land. Thus, the
Contract to Sell, although signed by the five petitioners, is not
sufficient to confer authority on petitioner Ernesto to act as their
agent in selling their shares in subjected land. Furthermore the
general rule of Agency is that ‘No one may contract in the name of
another without being authorized by the principal…’