Recio vs. Aguedo, Altamarino

Agency: Apparent Authority of an Agent based on Estoppel

Reman Recio, Petitioner, vs.

Heirs and the Spouses Aguedo and Maria Altamirano, Respondents.

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: Can the contract of sale between Alejandro (representing the share of his co-owners) and Recio be held valid pursuant to Apparent Authority of an Agent based on Estoppel?

Ruling:  No. Woodchild Holdings, Inc. vs. Roxas Electric and Construction Company, Inc. stressed that apparent authority based on estoppel can rise from the principal who knowingly permit the agent with indicia of authority that would lead a reasonable prudent person to believe that he actually has such authority. Apparent authority of an agent arises only from acts or conducts on the part of the principal and such act or conduct of the principal must have been known and relied upon in good faith and as a result of the exercise of a reasonable prudence by a third person as claimant and such must have produced a change of position to its detriment. In this case, there was no evidence on record of specific acts which the Altamiranos made before the sale 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 held that the sale between the other Altamarinos and the petitioner was null and void.