THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 129103. September 3, 1999]
CLAUDIO DELOS REYES a! LYDIA LYDIA DELOS REYES, petitioners, vs. "#E #ON. COUR" O$ A%%EALS a! DALUYONG GA&RIEL, '(b't)t(te! b* +)' +e)r', ame*- ARIA LUISA LUISA G. ES"E&AN, ARIA RI"A RI"A G. &AR"OLOE / RENA"O GA&RIEL, respondents. DECISION GONAGAREYES, J GONAGAREYES, J ..-
In this petition for review on certiorari, certiorari, petitioners seek to set aside the Decision[1] of the Court Court of Appeal Appealss[2] in CA!"R CA!"R"" CV No" #$%&& #$%&& revers reversin' in' the consoli consolidat dated ed Decisi Decision on[3] of the Re'ional Trial Court, (ranch I, Ta'u), Ta'u), Davao del Norte in Civil Case Nos" *#*$ and *#*+" This petition petition was ori'inall ori'inall filed with with the Court on -une .$, .%%+" In a Resolution Resolution /of the [4] Third Division0 dated Octo1er .#, .%%+, the petition was denied for failure to show that the respond respondent ent Court Court of Appeal Appealss co))it co))itted ted an revers reversi1l i1lee error error"" Howev However, er, the )otion )otion for reconsideration filed 1 petitioners on Nove)1er .2, .%%+ was 'ranted 1 the Court in its Resolution dated Dece)1er 3#, .%%+[5] and the petition was reinstated" The antecedents are4 ." 5rivate respondent Daluon' Daluon' !a1riel, /who died on Septe)1er .2 .%%& and was su1stituted su1stituted herein 1 his children R6NATO !A(RI67, 8ARIA 79ISA (" 6ST6(AN and 8ARIA RITA !" (ARTO7O860 (ARTO7O860 was the re'istered owner under Transfer Certificate of Title Title No" T .+%#* of the Re'istr of Deeds of Ta'u), Davao del Norte of a &,3.3 s:uare )eter parcel of land situated in (arrio 8a'u'po, Ta'u), Davao del Norte, [6] havin' ac:uired the sa)e 1 hereditar succession so)eti)e in .%+2 as one of the children and heirs of the late 8a;i)o !a1riel" *" (ecause (ecause Daluon' Daluon' !a1riel to'ether with his fa)il was then residin' residin' in 8andaluo 8andaluon', n', 8etro 8anila, his sister 8aria Rita !a1riel de Re acted as ad)inistratri; of the said parcel of land land and and took took char char'e 'e of coll collec ecti tin' n' the the rent rental alss for for thos thosee port portio ions ns whic which h have have 1een 76AS6D to certain tenants& 1 and 1etween 8aria Rita !" de Re as lessor and 7dia de los Rees as lessee, leased a portion of One Hundred Sevent Si; /.+$0 s:uare )eters for a ter) of one ear 1e'innin' -une .&, .%>& renewa1le upon a'ree)ent of the parties at the rental rate of Two Hundred /5*33"330 pesos, per )onth" [7]
#" So)eti)e in .%>& Daluon' !a1riel sent his son Renato !a1riel to Ta'u) Ta'u) reportedl with instructions to take over fro) 8aria Rita !" de Re as ad)inistrator of the said parcel of land" 9pon a'ree)ent of the parties, the -une *., .%>& Contract of 7ease coverin' the one
hundred seventsi; s:uare )eter portion of land was novated and replaced 1 a Contract of 7ease e;ecuted on Septe)1er *$, .%>& 1 and 1etween R6NATO !A(RI67 as
7essor and 7dia de los Rees as 7essee"[8] The ter) of the lease was chan'ed to si; /$0 ears fro) and after -une .&, .%>& or up to -une .&, .%%.? receipt of the pa)ent in advance of the total rental a)ount of @ourteen Thousand @our Hundred /5.2,233"330 5esos was acknowled'ed 1 7essor Renato !a1riel" 2" So)eti)e in Nove)1er .%>+, durin' the effectivit of the lease contract, 7dia de los Rees ver1all a'reed to 1u two hundred fift /*&30 s:uare )eters /includin' the .+$ s:uare )eters leased 1 her0, and thereafter an additional fift /&30 s:uare )eters or a total of three hundred /#330 s:uare )eters of Daluon' !a1riels re'istered propert, at three hundred pesos /5#33"330 per s:uare )eter or for a total a)ount of5%3,333"33" Receipt of the pa)ent of the purchase price )ade in several install)ents 1 7dia de los Rees was acknowled'ed 1 Renato !a1riel as evidenced 1 official receipts issued and si'ned 1 hi) dated Nove)1er *&, .%>+, Nove)1er *$,.%>+, -anuar >, .%>>, @e1ruar .3, .%>>, @e1ruar .&, .%>> and @e1ruar *%, .%>> all 1earin' the 76TT6R H6AD B!a1riel (uildin'" No deed of sale was e;ecuted coverin' the transaction" 5urchaser 7dia de los Rees however proceeded with the construction of a twostore co))ercial 1uildin' on the said #33 s:uare )eter lot after o1tainin' a 1uildin' per)it fro) the 6n'ineers Office in Ta'u)" &" Actin' on the infor)ation 'iven 1 his dau'hter 8aria 7uisa !a1riel 6ste1an upon the latters return fro) a trip to Ta'u) that spouses Claudio and 7dia de los Rees were constructin' a twostore 1uildin' on a portion of his land, Daluon' !a1riel, throu'h his lawer, sent a letter on Au'ust #3, .%>% to the De los Rees couple de)andin' that the cease and desist fro) continuin' with their construction and to i))ediatel vacate the pre)ises, assertin' that the construction was unauthoried and that their occupanc of the su1Eect portion was not covered 1 an 76AS6 A!R6686NT " $" On Septe)1er *3, .%>%, spouses Claudio and 7dia de los Rees throu'h counsel sent their letter repl e;plainin' that the De los Reeses are the innocent part who entered into the 76AS6 A!R6686NT and su1se:uent sale of su1Eect portion of land in 'ood faith and upon the assurance )ade 1 the for)er ad)inistratri;, 8aria Rita !" Re, her nephew Ton Re, 8rs" @e S" !a1riel and 8r" Daluon' !a1riel hi)self that Renato !a1riel is the new ad)inistrator authoried to enter into such a'ree)ents involvin' the su1Eect propert" +" Dissatisfied with the e;planation, Daluon' !a1riel co))enced an action on Nove)1er .2, .%>% a'ainst spouses Claudio and 7dia de los Rees for the recover of the su1Eect portion of land 1efore the Re'ional Trial Court, (ranch ., Ta'u), Davao del Norte docketed as Civil Case No" *#*$" In his co)plaint Daluon' )aintained that his son Renato was never 'iven the authorit to 76AS6 nor to sell an portion of his land as his instruction to hi) /Renato0 was )erel to collect rentals" >" Spouses Claudio and 7dia delos Rees countered that the sale to the) of the su1Eect portion of land 1 Renato !a1riel was with the consent and knowled'e of Daluon', his wife @e and their other children, and filed 1efore the sa)e trial court a co)plaint for specific perfor)ance, docketed as Civil Case No" *#*% a'ainst Daluon' and his children, na)el Renato !a1riel, 8aria 7uisa !a1riel 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !a1riel (artolo)e prain' that the defendants therein 1e ordered to e;ecute the necessar deed of conveance and other pertinent docu)ents for the transfer of the #33 s:uare )eter portion the previousl 1ou'ht fro) Renato"
%" Civil Case Nos" *#*$ and *#*+ were heard Eointl and on Septe)1er .3, .%%. the trial court rendered a consolidated decision, the dispositive portion [9] of which reads4
BFH6R6@OR6 pre)ises considered, Daluon' !a1riel, Renato !a1riel, 8aria 7uisa 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !" (artolo)e are here1 ordered to e;ecute a Deed of Conveance and other necessar docu)ents in favor of Claudio delos Rees and 7dia delos Rees over an area of #33 s:uare )eters fro) TCT No" T.+%#* co)prisin' of &,3.3 s:uare )eters located at Ta'u), Davao which portion is presentl occupied 1 Delos Rees couple" SO ORD6R6D .3"
On appeal 1 the !a1riels, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the Re'ional Trial Court and rendered a new one BORD6RIN! appellee spouses Claudio and 7dia delos Rees to i))ediatel vacate the #33 s:uare )eter portion of that land covered 1 TCT No" T.+%#* which the presentl occup and to turn over possession thereof to the appellants" ; ; ; ; [10]
Not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioners ca)e to this Court 1 wa of petition for review, alle'in' that4 Ba" The Court of Appeals 'ravel a1used its discretion in overlookin' facts e;tant in the record? 1" The Court of Appeals erred in not findin' the docu)ent of sale and receipts /e;hi1its for the herein 5etitioners0, as valid and enforcea1le? c" The Court of Appeals erred in its apprehension and appreciation of the undisputed facts for the 5etitioners? d" The Court of Appeals erred in )akin' speculative conclusions on the facts of the case? e" The Court of Appeals erred in reversin' the Decision of the Re'ional Trial Court 1ased on credi1le, relevant and )aterial evidence adduced 1 the 5etitioners in the lower court" [11]
5etitioners aver that respondent Court of Appeals 'ravel a1used its discretion when it totall disre'arded the oral and docu)entar evidence adduced 1 appellees, and in 'ivin' credence to the oral testi)onies of appellants, which are replete with inconsistencies and contradictions" 5etitioners cite specificall 6;hi1its B. to B.% consistin' of a contract of 76AS6 involvin' the su1Eect propert and certain official receipts with the 76TT6RH6AD B!a1riel (uildin' showin' pa)ents received /1 Ren ato !a1riel0 for the lease and, %, .3, .. G .*0 of land )ade 1 Renato !a1riel to petitionersspouses" In other words, respondent Court of Appeals B'ravel a1used its discretion in the )isapprehension and )isappreciation of the facts of the case and in 'oin' 1eond the issues involved contrar to the ad)issions of 1oth the appellants and appellees" And since the appellate courts findin's of facts contradict that of the trial court a thorou'h review thereof 1 the Supre)e Court is necessar"
In their Co))ent, private respondents restated their ar'u)ents to support the appellate courts conclusion that the alle'ed sale )ade 1 Renato !a1riel to the petitioners in .%>+ without authorit fro) Daluon' !a1riel is not valid and therefore unenforcea1le" 5etitioners su1)itted their Repl to the Co))ent contendin' that the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is Bpatentl fallacious in that while petitioners pa)ent to Renato !a1riel of the a)ount of 5%3,333"33 as purchase price of the three hundred /#330 s:uare )eter portion of su1Eect land was neither denied nor controverted, the appellate courts decision failed to order private respondent Renato !a1riel to refund or rei)1urse petitioners the said a)ount to'ether with the value of the i)prove)ents and the twostore co))ercial 1uildin' which petitioners constructed thereon in violation of Articles *.2*, *.2# and *.&2 of the Civil Code and the ti)e honored principle of su1stantial Eustice and e:uit" 5etitioners alle'e further that even if Renato !a1riel was not /et0 the owner of the su1Eect portion of land when he sold the sa)e to petitioners, after the death of his parents Daluon' and @e !a1riel, he, as heir, inherited and succeeded to the ownership of said portion of land 1 operation of law there1 renderin' valid and effective the sale he e;ecuted in favor of petitioners" 5etitioners also )aintain that on the 1asis of the facts proven and ad)itted durin' the trial, Daluon' !a1riel appears to have not onl authoried his son Renato !a1riel to sell the su1Eect portion of land 1ut also ratified the transaction 1 his conte)poraneous conduct and actuations shown durin' his lifeti)e" In their respective )e)orandu) su1)itted 1 petitioners and private respondents, su1stantiall the sa)e ar'u)ents
On the other hand, private respondents contend that the petition has no le'al or factual 1asis" It is ar'ued that petitioners chan'ed their theor of the case in that while in the re'ional trial court, petitioners clai) that the su1Eect propert was sold to the) 1 the late Daluon' !a1riel throu'h his son Renato !a1riel, in the instant petition, the clai) that it was Renato !a1riel who sold the propert to the) and that althou'h at that ti)e, Renato was not et the owner of the propert, he is nonetheless o1li'ated to honor the sale and to conve the propert to the petitioners 1ecause after the death of Daluon' !a1riel, Renato 1eca)e the owner of the su1Eect propert 1 wa of hereditar succession" Accordin' to private respondents, liti'ants are 1arred fro) chan'in' their theor, )ore especiall so in the appeal, and that the onl issue to 1e resolved in the instant petition is whether or not Renato !a1riel can 1e co)pelled to conve the su1Eect propert to petitioners" 5rivate respondents )aintain that Renato !a1riel cannot 1e co)pelled to conve su1Eect propert /to petitioners0 1ecause the land never passed on to Renato either 1efore or after the death of Daluon' !a1riel and that the whole propert is now owned 1 8a" Rita !" (artolo)e per Transfer Certificate of Title No" T$>$+2 entered in the Re'istr of
Deeds of Davao del Norte on -anuar .3, .%%."[13] In short, Renato !a1riel cannot conve that which does not 1elon' to hi)"[14] 6ssentiall, the issue here is whether or not the ver1al a'ree)ent which petitioners entered into with private respondent Renato !a1riel in .%>+ involvin' the sale of the three hundred /#330 s:uare )eter portion of land re'istered in the na)e of Renatos late father Daluon' !a1riel is a valid and enforcea1le contract of sale of real propert" ( law[15] a contract of sale is perfected at the )o)ent there is a )eetin' of )inds upon the thin' which is the o1Eect of the contract and upon the price" It is a consensual contract which is perfected 1 )ere consent"[16] Once perfected, the contract is 'enerall 1indin' in whatever for) /i"e" written or oral0 it )a have 1een entered into[17] provided the three /#0 essential re:uisites for its validit prescri1ed under Article .#.> supra, are present" @ore)ost of these re:uisites is the consent and the capacit to 'ive consent of the parties to the contract" The le'al capacit of the parties is an essential ele)ent for the e;istence of the contract 1ecause it is an indispensa1le condition for the e;istence of consent"[18] There is no effective consent in law without the capacit to 'ive such consent" In other words, le'al consent presupposes capacit"[19] Thus, there is said to 1e no consent, and conse:uentl, no contract when the a'ree)ent is entered into 1 one in 1ehalf of another who has never 'iven hi) authoriation therefor [20] unless he has 1 law a ri'ht to represent the latter "[21] It has also 1een held that if the vendor is not the owner of the propert at the ti)e of the sale, the sale is null and void, [22] 1ecause a person can sell onl what he owns or is authoried to sell"[23] One e;ception is when a contract entered into in 1ehalf of another who has not authoried it, su1se:uentl confir)ed or ratified the sa)e in which case, the transaction 1eco)es valid and 1indin' a'ainst hi) and he is estopped to :uestion its le'alit"[24] The trial court held that the oral contract of sale was valid and enforcea1le statin' that while it is true that at the ti)e of the sale, Renato !a1riel was not the owner and that it was Daluon' !a1riel who was the re'istered owner of the su1Eect propert, Daluon' !a1riel knew a1out the transaction and tacitl authoried his son Renato !a1riel /who) he earlier desi'nated as ad)inistrator of his &,3.3 s:uare )eter re'istered propert0 to enter into it" The receipt 1 Renato !a1riel of the 5%3,333"33 paid 1 petitioner spouses as purchase price of su1Eect portion of land[25] and also of the a)ount of 5.2,233"33 paid 1 petitioners as advance rental fee for the 76AS6 of one hundred sevent si; /.+$0 s:uare )eters thereof, in accordance with the then still e;istin' Contract of 7ease /6;h" .30 entered into 1 Renato !a1riel as 7essor and 7dia delos Rees as lessee on Septe)1er *$ .%>& which was to e;pire onl on -une .&, .%%. was also known not onl to Daluon' !a1riel 1ut also to his late wife @e Salaar !a1riel and his two other children, 8aria 7uisa !a1riel 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !a1riel (artolo)e" And even assu)in' that Daluon' !a1riel did not e;pressl authorie Renato !a1riel to enter into such contract of sale with petitioners in .%>>, he /Daluon' !a1riel0 confir)ed& I" 7ope St", 8andaluon' Cit 1ut was deli1eratel prevented /1 Daluon'0 fro) testifin' or sheddin' li'ht on the transactions involved in the two cases then at 1ar" Hence, the decision of the trial court ordered Daluon' !a1riel, Renato !a1riel, 8aria 7uisa !" 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !" (artolo)e to e;ecute a Deed of Conveance and other necessar docu)ents in favor of petitioners coverin' su1Eect area of #33 s:uare )eters
to 1e taken fro) the &,3.3 s:uare )eters covered 1 TCT No" T.+%#* under the na)e of Daluon' !a1riel which portion is actuall occupied 1 petitioners Delos Rees couple" The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, ruled that the contract of sale cannot 1e upheld, )ainl 1ecause Renato !a1riel, as vendor, did not have the le'al capacit to enter and to 'ive consent to the a'ree)ent, he, 1ein' neither the authoried a'ent /of Daluon' !a1riel0 nor the owner of the propert su1Eect of the sale" It was pointed out that three theories were advanced 1 appellees to prove that the transaction the had with Renato concernin' the sale of the portion in :uestion was re'ular, valid and enforcea1le" @irst theor is that Renato acted as the dul authoried representative or a'ent of Daluon'" Second, that the portion in dispute was alread 'iven to Renato as his share, hence, he validl sold the sa)e to appellees" And third, that the portion 1ein' liti'ated was part of Renatos inheritance fro) the estate of her deceased )other which he validl disposed of to appellees" These reasons, accordin' to the appellate court, cannot 'o to'ether, or even co)ple)ent each other, to esta1lish the re'ularit, validit or enforcea1ilit of the sale )ade 1 Renato" It could not 1e possi1le for Renato to have acted in three different capacities as a'ent, owner, and heir when he dealt with appellees, as the le'al conse:uences for each situation would 1e different" Thus, it was incu)1ent upon appellees to e;plain what actuall convinced the) to 1u the land fro) Renato, and 1ecause the failed to do so, no proper 1asis can 1e found to uphold the alle'ed sale )ade 1 Renato as it cannot 1e deter)ined with certaint in what capacit Renato acted" And even assu)in' that he /Renato0 alread succeeded to whatever hereditar ri'ht or participation he )a have over the estate of his father, he is still considered a coowner with his two sisters of the su1Eect propert and that prior to its partition, Renato cannot validl sell or alienate a specific or deter)inate part of the propert owned in co))on" (esides, the entire lot covered 1 TCT No" T.+%#* was su1se:uentl donated 1 Daluon' !a1riel to his dau'hter 8arie Rita !" (artolo)e on Octo1er ., .%%3 and is now covered 1 TCT No" T$>$+2 in her na)e"[27] Hence, the appellate courts decision ordered appellees /petitioners0 spouses Claudio and 7dia delos Rees to i))ediatel vacate the #33 s:uare )eter portion of that land covered 1 TCT No" T.+%#* which the are occupin' and to turnover possession thereof to the appellants, private respondents herein" As a 'eneral rule, the findin's of fact of the Court of Appeals are 1indin' upon this Court" Fhen such findin's of fact are the sa)e and confir)ator of those of the trial court, the are final and conclusive and )a not 1e reviewed on appeal,[29] In such cases, the authorit of the Supre)e Court is confined to correctin' errors of law, if an, that )i'ht have 1een co))itted 1elow"[30] In the instant case, it is noted that the trial court and the Court of Appeals are not at variance in their factual findin's that so)eti)e in .%>>, an oral contract of sale was entered into 1 Renato !a1riel, /as vendor0 with petitioners De los Rees couple /as vendees0 involvin' a #33 s:uare )eter portion of a &,3.3 s:uare )eter parcel of land located in (arrio 8a'u'po, Ta'u), Davao del Norte owned and re'istered under Transfer Certificate of Title No" T.+%#* in the na)e of Daluon' !a1riel, father of Renato" Thus, this Court is tasked to review and deter)ine whether or not respondent Court of Appeals co))itted an error of law[31] in its le'al conclusion that at the ti)e the parties entered into said oral a'ree)ent of sale, Renato !a1riel as the purported vendor, did not have the le'al capacit to enter and
Fe a'ree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that Renato !a1riel was neither the owner of the su1Eect propert nor a dul desi'nated a'ent of the re'istered owner /Daluon' !a1riel0 authoried to sell su1Eect propert in his 1ehalf, and there was also no sufficient evidence adduced to show that Daluon' !a1riel su1se:uentl ratified Renatos act" In this
connection it )ust 1e pointed out that pursuant to Article .>+2 of the Civil Code, when the sale of a piece of land or an interest therein is throu'h an a'ent, the authorit of the latter shall 1e in writin'? otherwise the sale shall 1e void" In other words, for want of capacit /to 'ive consent0 on the part of Renato !a1riel, the oral contract of sale lacks one of the essential re:uisites for its validit prescri1ed under Article .#.>, supra and is therefore null and void ab initio" 5etitioners contention that althou'h at the ti)e of the alle'ed sale, Renato !a1riel was not et the owner of the su1Eect portion of land, after the death of Daluon' !a1riel, he /Renato0 1eca)e the owner and ac:uired title thereto 1 wa of hereditar succession which title passed 1 operation of law to petitioners pursuant to Article .2#2 of the Civil Code[32] is not tena1le" Records show that on Octo1er ., .%%3 Daluon' !a1riel donated the entire lot covered 1 TCT No" T.+%#* to his dau'hter 8aria Rita !" (artolo)e and the propert is now covered 1 TCT No" T$>$+2 in her na)e" This )eans that when Daluon' !a1riel died on Septe)1er .2, .%%&, he was no lon'er the owner of the su1Eect propert" Accordin'l, Renato !a1riel never ac:uired ownership or title over an portion of said propert as one of the heirs of Daluon' !a1riel" However, respondent Court of Appeals failed to consider the undisputed fact pointed out 1 the trial court that petitioners had alread perfor)ed their o1li'ation under su1Eect oral contract of sale, i"e" co)pletin' their pa)ent of 5%3,333"33 representin' the purchase price of the #33 s:uare )eter portion of land" As was held in BNool vs" Court of Appeals[33] if a void contract has 1een perfor)ed, the restoration of what has 1een 'iven is in order" The relationship 1etween parties in an contract even if su1se:uentl voided )ust alwas 1e characteried and punctuated 1 'ood faith and fair dealin'"[34] Hence, for the sake of Eustice and e:uit, and in consonance with the salutar principle of nonenrich)ent at anothers e;pense,[35] private respondent Renato !a1riel, should 1e ordered to refund to petitioners the a)ount of 5%3,333"33 which the have paid to and receipt of which was dul acknowled'ed 1 hi)" It is the polic of the Court to strive to settle the entire controvers in a sin'le proceedin' leavin' no root or 1ranch to 1ear the seeds of future liti'ation especiall where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute 1ased on the records 1efore it and where the ends of Eustice would not likel 1e su1served 1 the re)and thereof, to the lower Court" The Supre)e Court is clothed with a)ple authorit to review )atters, even those not raised on appeal if it finds that their consideration is necessar in arrivin' at a Eust disposition of the case"[36] However, petitioners clai) for the refund to the) of 5.,333,333"33 representin' the alle'ed value and cost of the twostore co))ercial 1uildin' the constructed on su1Eect portion of land cannot 1e favora1l considered as no sufficient evidence was adduced to prove and esta1lish the sa)e" #ERE$ORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April #3, .%%+ in CA!"R" CV No" #$%&& is here1 A@@IR86D in so far as it declared the oral contract of sale entered into 1 Renato !a1riel of portion of the &,3.3 s:uare )eter parcel of land re'istered in the na)e of Daluon' !a1riel in favor of petitioners, null and void" Renato !a1riel is here1 ordered to refund to petitioners the a)ount of 5%3,333"33 which was 'iven in pa)ent for su1Eect land" No pronounce)ent as to costs" SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur .
Vitug , J., please see concurrin' opinion.
