Art 1874, NCC, says that: An agent’s authority shall be in writing if the sale of a piece of land or

interest in the land is made through him. If it’s not in writing, then it’s void = “Special power of
attorney”
A.k.a.
If the principal (owners) wishes to vest into an agent the right to sell their land, they must expressly
state it in writing

Under Art 1670, NCC: If the contract expires and the lessee remains in possession after 15 days, the
terms of the original contract of lease are revived in the implied new lease (BUT only those terms
that are germane to the continued enjoyment of the property leased by the lessee. This does not
include the option to purchase the property)

FACTS:
- Private respondents are lessees of the land owned by the petitioners
o Their contract of lease was for one year with the option to purchase
- The contract expired
o But respondents maintained in possession thereof with the cognizance of the
petitioners
- Hence, the contract is impliedly renewed (Art 1670)
- The respondents gave 300k to Alice as partial payment
o Under the premise that they can buy the land
- There was a misunderstanding
- Respondents thought they had already successfully partially paid for the land through Alice
(even invoking the receipt)
- Petitioners thought otherwise
- SC ruled in favor of petitioners
o Ordered petitioners to refund 300k
- Respondents file a Motion for Reconsideration, 2nd Motion for Reconsideration, and Motion
to Suspend Procedural Rules in the Higher Interest of Substantial Justice

ISSUE:
WON the respondents partially paid for the land
WON SC can suspend RoC

HELD:
NO
- Alice cannot bind the petitioners to the sale of the land even if she received the 300k because
she is not authorized to do so
o So it cannot be said it was sold
- Moreover, the option to sell has already expired along with the original contract of lease