9. INLAND REALTY V. CA G.R. No. 76969 June 9, 1997 FACTS: Petitioner Inland Realty Investment Service, Inc. (Inland Realty) is a corporation engaged in the real real estate estate busin business ess and broker brokerage ages. s. Respon Responden dentt Gregor Gregorio io Arane Araneta ta Inc., Inc., throug through h its its Assistant General anager !. Armando "du#ue, granted Inland Realty the authority to sell on a $irst come $irst served basis the total holdings o$ Gregorio Araneta, Inc. in Architects% &ldg. Inc., e#uivalent to ' or ',** shares o$ stock at P+,** per share $or -* days. A$ter receiving a proposal letter $rom Inland Realty, Stan$ord icrosystems, Inc., a prospective buyer, counterproposed counterproposed to buy ',** shares at P+,*** per share or $or a total o$ P'., P/.' payable in $ive years at +0 per annum interest until $ully paid. Araneta, Inc. replied to a letter sent by Inland Realty, saying that the price o$$ered by Stan$ord 1as too lo1 and suggested that Inland Realty negotiate more $or a lo1er price 1ith Stand$ord. 2he authority to sell given to Inland Realty by Gregorio Araneta Inc. 1as e3tended $or three times, -* days each, 1here the last e3tension o$ its contract e3pired on 4ecember 0, +'5. 6n !uly , +'55, Inland Realty $inally sold the ',** shares o$ stock in Architects% &ldg., Inc. to Stan$ord icrosystems, Inc. $or P+-.. 2herea$ter, Inland Realty sent a demand letter to Gregorio Araneta Inc., $or the payment o$ their broker7s commission (P85,***), 1hich 1as declined by respondent, claiming that a$ter their authority to sell e3pired thirty (-*) days $rom 4ecember 0, +'5, petitioners 1ere no longer privy to the consummation o$ the sale. Inland Realty $iled a case in R29 $or the collection o$ its broker7s commission $rom respondent, but the R29 dismissed its case. 6n its appeal, the 9A also dismissed Inland Realty7s petition, since the petitioner7s agency contract and authority to sell already e3pired on !anuary +, +'58, 1hereas the consummation o$ the sale to Stan$ord had only been on !uly , +'55 or more than + year and months a$ter petitioners% agency contract and authority to sell e3pired. 2he petitioner $iled this present petition be$ore the Supreme 9ourt, contending that Inland Realty, as a broker is automatically entitled to the commission merely upon securing $or, and introducing to, the seller, the buyer 1ho ultimately purchases $rom the $ormer the ob:ect o$ the sale, regardless o$ the e3piration o$ the broker%s contract o$ agency and authority to sell. ISSUE: ;hether or not Inland Realty is entitled $or the broker7s commission. HELD: <6. 2he 9ourt ruled that sine In!"n# Re"!$% &"s no$ $'e e((iien$ )*ou*in+ "use in *in+in+ "ou$ $'e s"!e on Ju!% -, 1977, $'e*e(o*e i$ is no$ en$i$!e# $o $'e / *o0e*s o22ission. 4uring the subsistence o$ its authority to sell, Inland Realty had nothing to sho1 that they per$ormed substantial acts that pro3imately and causatively led to the consummation o$ the sale to Stan$ord o$ Araneta, Inc.%s ',** shares in Architects%. Inland Realty $ailed in selling said shares under the terms and conditions set out by Araneta, Inc.= it did nothing but submit Stan$ord%s name as prospective buyer. 2he lapse o$ more than one (+) year and $ive () months bet1een the e3piration o$ petitioners% authority to sell and the consummation o$ the sale to Stan$ord sho1s the petitioner7s nonpa nonparti rticip cipati ation on in the crucia cruciall events events leadin leading g to the consum consummat mation ion o$ said said sale, sale, i.e., i.e., the the negotiations to convince Stan$ord to sell at Araneta, Inc.%s asking price, the $inali>ation o$ the terms and conditions o$ the sale, the dra$ting o$ the deed o$ sale, the processing o$ pertinent documents, and the delivery o$ the shares o$ stock to Stan$ord.
2here$ore, the 9ourt #is2isse# Inland Realty7s present petition.
