THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 129103 September 3, 1999
CLAUDIO DELOS REYES and LYDIA DELOS REYES, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and DALUYONG GABRIEL, substituted by his heirs, namely: MARIA LUISA G. ESTEBAN, MARIA RITA G. BARTOLOME & RENATO GABRIEL, respondents.
Separate Opinions
VITUG, J., concurring opinion;
I share the view expressed in the ponencia written for the Court by our esteemed colleague, Mme. Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, that holds the verbal contract of sale between petitioner spouses Claudio and Lydia de los Reyes and respondent Renato Gabriel to be void for lack of authority on the part of the latter to convey the property subject thereof.
Art. 409, of the Civil Code of the Philippines, has grouped together contracts which have theretofore been jurisprudentially considered void ab initio under the old code. the nullity of these contracts is rather definitive in nature and cannot thereby be cured by ratification.1 There are, however, other juridical relations which are specifically declared to be void by law under separate provisions of the code like, such as here, the sale of a piece of land or any interest therein made through an agent whose authority is not reduced in writing2 or when the agent exceeds the scope of his authority.3 in these special instances, it would be important and prudent to take a minute longer to look at the law for, at times, the rationale for their being can justify a divergence from the standard rules governing void contracts in general. Although, by statute and jurisprudence4 denominated void, Article 1874 sales, are, in fact, susceptible to ratification. This intent of the law can be gleaned from some provisions of the code. for instance —
Art. 1403. the following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
(1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one into has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers;
x x x x x x x x x
Art. 1910. the principal must comply with all the obligations which the agent may have contracted within the scope of his authority.ℒαwρhi৷
As for any obligation wherein the agent has exceeded his power, the principal is not bound except when he ratifies it expressly or tacitly.
The susceptibility to ratification could prompt one to say that the contract should, in essence, be deemed merely unenforceable. That, too, may not be totally accurate for outside that feature, other principles of a void contract could, nevertheless, be apt and relevant. to exemplify, the rule in evidence to the effect that the unenforceable character of a contract is lost by a failure to object at the first opportunity to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the questioned transaction would not necessarily be applicable to contracts specially declared void under Article 1874 of the Code which sanctions ratification only if done by an act of affirmation by the principal.
Footnotes
1 Arsenal vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 143 SCRA 40; Tongoy vs. Court of Appeals, 123 SCRA 99.
2 Art. 1874. When a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise the sale shall be void.
3 Art. 1898. If the agent contracts in the name of the principal, exceeding the scope of his authority, and the principal does not ratify the contract, it shall be void if the party with whom the agent contracted is aware of the limits of the powers granted by the principal. in this case, however, the agent is liable if he undertook to secure the principal's ratification.
4 National Merchandising Corporation vs. National Power Corporation, 117 SCRA 789.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
