Scribd
Upload
45 views1 page

Alcantara Vs Nido

The court ruled that the sale of land by Revelen's mother, acting without written authority, is void as per Article 1874 of the Civil Code. The spouses, who believed they were purchasing from the owner, had no legal basis for the transaction since no written consent was provided by Revelen. Consequently, the contract cannot be ratified and produces no legal effect.

Uploaded by

irvin2030
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
45 views1 page

Alcantara Vs Nido

The court ruled that the sale of land by Revelen's mother, acting without written authority, is void as per Article 1874 of the Civil Code. The spouses, who believed they were purchasing from the owner, had no legal basis for the transaction since no written consent was provided by Revelen. Consequently, the contract cannot be ratified and produces no legal effect.

Uploaded by

irvin2030
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

Spouses Alcantara vs Brigida L.

Nido, Revelen Srivastava

632 Phil. 343, April 9, 2010

Carpio, J.,

Facts:

Revelen’s portion of a lot was brought by the Alcantaraband Rubi spouses through Revelen’s mother
Nido. The spouses paid downpayment and the balance will be paid on installment. The spouses built
house upon the land in question but after three years, the spouses defaulted on their payment.

Nido, acting as attorney-in-fact of Revelen filed a complaint for recovery of possession against the
spouses. The claim was that the sale was void because Revelen ONLY verbally authorized her mother to
sell the lot in question. The spouses contended that the contract to sell over the land in question is
voidable and, hence, can be ratified.

Issue:

 Whether or not the contract to sell of Revelen’s land is void.

Ruling:

 The sale is void.


 Article 1874 of the Civil Code explicitly requires a written authority before an agent can sell an
immovable property. Based on a review of the records, there is absolutely no proof of
respondent's written authority to sell the lot to petitioners. In fact, during the pre-trial conference,
petitioners admitted that at the time of the negotiation for the sale of the lot, petitioners were of
the belief that respondent was the owner of lot.Petitioners only knew that Revelen was the owner
of the lot during the hearing of this case. Consequently, the sale of the lot by respondent who did
not have a written authority from Revelen is void. A void contract produces no effect either
against or in favor of anyone and cannot be ratified.
 Consent of Revelen was not legally obtained because there is no written authority as required by
law was executed by Revelen when the sale took place.

You might also like