Batch 2

Case 18

Antonio Litonjua vs. Mary Ann Grace Fernandez

14 April 2004, GR No. 148116

Petitioners: Antonio K. Litonjua and Aurelio K. Litonjua, Jr.

Respondents: Mary Ann Grace Fernandez, Heirs of Paz Ticzon Eleosida, Represented By
Gregorio T. Eleosida, Heirs of Domingo B. Ticzon, Represented By Mary Mediatrix T.
Fernandez. Cristeta Ticzon, Evangeline Jill R. Ticzon, Erlinda T. Benitez, Dominic Ticzon,
Josefina Luisa Piamonte, John Does and Jane Does

Facts:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari denying the petitioners motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid decision. The heirs of Domingo B. Ticzon are the owners of a
parcel of land located in San PabloCity, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-36766
of the Register of Deeds of an Pablo City. The heirs of Paz Ticzon Eleosida, represented by
Gregorio T. Eleosida, are the owners of a parcel of land located in San Pablo City, covered by TCT
No. 36754, also of the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City. In 1995, Mrs. Lourdes Alimario and
Agapito Fisico who worked as brokers, offered to sell to the Petitioners, Antonio K. Litonjua
and Aurelio K. Litonjua, Jr., the parcels of land covered with TCT.. The brokers told the
petitioners that they were authorized by respondent Fernandez to offer the property for sale.
The petitioners and respondent Fernandez agreed that the petitioners would buy the property
consisting of 36,742 square meters, for the price of P150 per square meter, or the total sum of
P5,098,500. The respondent Fernandez agreed to, among others, present a special power of
attorney executed by the owners of the property, authorizing her to sell the property for and in
their behalf, and to execute a deed of absolute sale thereon.
However, only Agapito Fisico attended the meeting; and from then on the petitioners
communicated to Fernandez to execute, and turnover the subject properties of their verbal
agree me and not of sale upon receipt of their Letter. Fernandez denied the claims of petitioner
that she did not accept the offer; thus, no verbal contract to sell was ever perfected. She
specifically alleged that the said contract to sell was unenforceable for failure to comply with
the statute of frauds. Plaintiff asserts that there is meeting of minds and defendants can no
longer change its mind; and that defendants suffered loss. The Appellate court reversed the
RTC decision. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE:

1.W/N THE RESPONDENTS-OWNERS authorized respondent Fernandez to sell their

properties.

2.W/N the plaintiffs can feign ignorance of respondent Fernandez lack of authority.

RULING:

1. No. There is no documentary evidence on record that the respondents-owners

specifically authorized respondent Fernandez to sell their properties to another, including the
petitioners. Article 1878 of the New Civil Code provides that a special power of attorney is
necessary to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or
acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration, or to create or convey real rights
over immovable property, or for any other act of strict dominion. Any sale of real property by
one purporting to be the agent of the registered owner without any authority therefore in
writing from the said owner is null and void. The declarations of the agent alone are generally
insufficient to establish the fact or extent of her authority. In this case, the only evidence
adduced by the petitioners to prove that respondent Fernandez was authorized by the
respondents-owners is the testimony of petitioner Antonio Litonjua that respondent Fernandez
openly represented herself to be the representative of the respondents-owners, and that she
promised to present to the petitioners on December 8, 1996 a written authority to sell the
properties.
2. No. The petitioners cannot feign ignorance of respondent Fernandez’ lack of authority to sell
the properties for the respondents-owners. It must be stressed that the petitioners are noted
businessmen who ought to be very familiar with the intricacies of business transactions, such as
the sale of real property.

The settled rule is that persons dealing with an assumed agent are bound at their peril,
and if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the
nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon
them to prove it. In this case, respondent Fernandez specifically denied that she was authorized
by the respondents-owners to sell the properties, both in her answer to the complaint and when
she testified. The Letter dated January 16, 1996 relied upon by the petitioners was signed by
respondent Fernandez alone, without any authority from the respondents-owners. There is no
evidence on record that the respondents-owners ratified all the actuations of respondent
Fernandez in connection with her dealings with the petitioners. As such, said letter is not
binding on the respondents as owners of the subject properties.