Scribd
Upload
208 views1 page

Glorilyn M. Montejo Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Unchuan

Unchuan claimed ownership over two lots based on an original land title. However, Atanacio allegedly sold the lots to the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) while purporting to act as the attorney-in-fact for all the registered owners and their heirs. Unchuan argued the sale was void because the registered owners did not authorize the sale. Both the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Unchuan, finding that Atanacio did not have the proper written authorization to sell the lots on behalf of the other registered owners. The Supreme Court affirmed but modified, finding the sale void only as to the other registered owners since a special power of attorney is required under the Civil Code to transfer ownership of

Uploaded by

GLORILYN MONTEJO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
208 views1 page

Glorilyn M. Montejo Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Unchuan

Unchuan claimed ownership over two lots based on an original land title. However, Atanacio allegedly sold the lots to the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) while purporting to act as the attorney-in-fact for all the registered owners and their heirs. Unchuan argued the sale was void because the registered owners did not authorize the sale. Both the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Unchuan, finding that Atanacio did not have the proper written authorization to sell the lots on behalf of the other registered owners. The Supreme Court affirmed but modified, finding the sale void only as to the other registered owners since a special power of attorney is required under the Civil Code to transfer ownership of

Uploaded by

GLORILYN MONTEJO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

GLORILYN M.

MONTEJO

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Unchuan


June 01, 2016 | G.R. No. 182537 | MENDOZA, J
 
FACTS:
Unchuan alleged, among others, that he was the legal and rightful owner of Lot No. 4810-A, with an
area of177,176 square meters, and Lot No. 4810-B, with an area of 2,740 square meters, both located in
Barrio Buaya, Lapu-Lapu City, and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. R0-1173. Unchuan
further alleged that he came to know that Atanacio Godinez (Atanacio), the supposed attorney-in-fact of
all the registered owners and their heirs, already sold both lots to Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA);
the predecessor of MCIAA that the sale covered by the Deed of Absolute Sale, was null and void because
the registered owners and their heirs did not authorize Atanacio to sell their undivided shares in  the
subject lots in favor of CAA. That no actual consideration was paid to the said registered owners or
their heirs, despite promises that they would be paid; that the deed of absolute sale did not bear the
signature of the CAA representative; that there was no proof that the Secretary of the Department of
Public Works and Highways approved the sale; and that his predecessors-in-interest merely tolerated the
possession by CAA and, later, by MCIAA.

RTC rendered judgment in favor of Unchuan. RTC held that Atanacio was not legally authorized to act
as the attorney-in-fact of his brothers and sisters and to transact on their behalf because he was not
clothed with a special power of attorney granting him authority to sell the disputed lots. CA affirmed the
RTC decision. Atanacio had no authority to act as an agent for the other registered owners and their
heirs absent the special power of attorney specifically executed for such purpose.

ISSUE: W/N the decision of the RTC affirmed by the CA is valid.


 
RULING:
YES but with MODIFICATIONS. The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Court finds that the sale
transaction executed between Atanacio, acting as an agent of his fellow registered owners, and the CAA
was indeed void insofar as the other registered owners were concerned. They were represented without a
written authority from them clearly in violation of the requirement under Articles 1874 and 1878 of the Civil
Code.
a. 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.

b. Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney are necessary in the following cases: x x x 


 
(5) To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either
gratuitously or for a valuable consideration.

In the case of Dizon v. CA, when the sale of a piece of land or any interest thereon is through an agent,
the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void. Thus the authority of an
agent to execute a contract for the sale of real estate must be conferred in writing and must give him
specific authority, either to conduct the general business of the principal or to execute a binding contract
containing terms and conditions which are in the contract he did execute.

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. The express
mandate required by law to enable an appointee of an agency (couched) in general terms to sell must be
one that expressly mentions a sale or that includes a sale as a necessary ingredient of the act mentioned.
For the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate, a power of attorney must so express
the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language. When there is any reasonable doubt that the
language so used conveys such power, no such construction shall be given the document.

You might also like