171

City-Lite Realty Corp. v. CA

DOCTRINE OF LAW: An authority of an agent to sell a piece of land shall be made in

FACTS: This is a petition for review certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
FP Holdings offered to sell their property called the Violago Property to the public
through circulation of a sales which also stated that respondent Meldin Roy of Metro
Drug was the contact person for such purchase. After some discussions, they finally
reached an agreement and Roy agreed to sell the property to City Lite provided only
that the latter submit its acceptance in writing to the terms and conditions of the sale.
However, FP Holdings refused to execute the deed of sale in favor of City Lite. City Lite
instituted a complaint against FP Holdings originally for specific performance and
damages and caused the annotation of the second notice of lis pendens on the new
certificate of title. Judgment was rendered in favor of City Lite ordering FP Holdings to
execute a deed of sale. However, the CA reversed such decision on the ground that no
contract of sale was perfected between it and FP Holdings on the ground that Metro
Drug and Roy were not authorized to sell the property to City Lite and that the authority
of Roy was only limited to that of a mere liaison or contact person.

ISSUE: W/N there was a perfected contract of sale between City Lite and FP Holdings
acting through its agent.

RULING: NO. Article 1874 of the Civil Code provides: “When the 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.” The absence of authority to sell can be determined
from the written memorandum issued by respondent FP Holdings’ President requesting
Metro Drug's assistance in finding buyers for the property. This obviously meant that
Roy and/or Metro Drug was only to assist FP Holdings in looking for buyers and
referring to them possible prospects whom they were supposed to endorse FP
Holdings. But the final evaluation, appraisal and acceptance of the transaction could be
made only by F.P. HOLDINGS. In other words, Roy and/or Metro Drug was only a
contact person with no authority to conclude a sale of the property. For the lack of a
written authority to sell the Violago Property on the part of Roy and/or Metro Drug, the
sale should be as it is declared null and void. Therefore the sale could not produce any
legal effect as to transfer the subject property from its lawful owner, FP Holdings, to any
interested party including petitioner City Lite.
 172
Oesmer v. Paraiso Dev. Corp.
514 SCRA 228, 237 [2007]
Chico-Nazario J.

DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: The law itself explicitly requires a written authority before an
agent can sell an immovable. The conferment of such an authority should be in writing,
in as clear and precise terms as possible.

FACTS: This is a petition for review certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Petitioners all surnamed Oesmer, together with Adolfo Oesmer and Jesus Oesmer, are
brothers and sisters, and the co-owners of undivided shares of two parcel of land.
Respondent Paraiso Development Corporation bought from Oesmer their respective
share of the lot except the Adolfo and Jesus share. After the said meeting, a contract to
sell was created between the parties, on which the Oesmer affirming their signatures
inthe said contract.Then the Oesmer withdrew from the said contract and ask for the
rescission to which they alleged they never sign the contract, the agent has no
authority from the petitioners, that said Oesmer is illiterate to sign the contract.

ISSUE:W/N there was a perfected contract between Oesmer and Paraiso Corp.

RULING: NO. Petition granted. It is worth noting that Oesmers’ signatures are found in
the contract to sell. The contract is absolutely silent on the establishment of any
principal-agent relationship between the five petitioners and their borgher and co-
petitioner Ernesto as to the sale of the subject parcels of land. Thus, the contract,
although signed on the margin by the five petitioners, is not sufficient to confer authority
on petitioner Ernesto to act as their agent in selling their shares in the properties in
question. However, despite petitioner Ernestos lack of written authority from the five
petitioners to sell their s hares in the subject parcel of land, the supposed contract to
sell remains valid and binding upon the latter. As can be clearly gleaned from the
contract itself, it is not only petitioner Ernesto who signed the said contract; the other
five petitioners also personally affixed their signatures thereon. Therefore, a written
authoritu is no longer necessary in order to sell their shares in the subject parcels of
land because, by affixing their signatures on the contract, they were not selling their
shares through an agent but,rather, they were selling the same directly and in their own
right.
 173
Mendoza v. David
441 SCRA 172 [2004]
Carpio, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: In a sale by sample, the standard of quality a small quantity
is exhibited by the seller as a fair specimen of the bulk, which is not present and there is
no opportunity to inspect or examine the same. In a sale by description, a seller’s
description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the transaction creates a
warranty that the goods will conform to that description.

FACTS: This is a petition for review certiorari on the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Mendoza ordered 3 sets of furniture and issued specifications to David for P185,650.00.
A down payment of P87,650.00 has been paid. Upon delivery, Mendoza rejected it
because of inferior material and quality and thereby asked for a refund. David ignored it
and demanded for the balance of P100,000.00. He reclaimed the said furniture. David
retrieved the said furniture due to non payment of the balance.Thus, Medonza filed a
complaint herein. MTC, RTC and CA dismissed the case. Mendoza contended taht CA,
who dismissed her case, erred since the transaction was by description or by sample
(who avers that the said that the delivered materials were supposed to match bulk
goods.)

ISSUE: W/N transaction between the parties was that of a sale by description or by
sample.

RULING: NEITHER. Decision modified. In the present case, the sale was not
considered by sample because it does not constitute an agreement to correspond with a
certain pattern. There is no agreement to replicate the goods in respondent David’s
furniture store. It is also not by description because it would require the seller to be the
one who would give the description. In this case it was the buyer. Clearly, this is a
“made to order” sale.
 174
Province of Cebu v. Heirs of Rufina Morales
546 SCRA 315 [2008]
Ynares-Santiago, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: A sale by public auction is perfected "when the auctioneer
announces its perfection by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner".

FACTS: This is a petition for review certiorari on the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Province of Cebu leased in favor of Rufina Morales a 210-square meter lot. Province of
Cebu donated the lot occupied by Morales to the City of Cebu. The city, then, sold the
subject lot at public auction. The highest bidder was Bascon but Morales was allowed to
match the highest bid since she had apreferential right to the lot as actual occupant
thereof. Morales thus paid the required deposit and partial payment for the lot. Morales
died and apart from the deposit and down payment, she was not able to make any other
payments on the balance of the purchase price for the lot. Now the surviving heirs of
Morales are asking for the formal conveyance of subject lot, in accordance with the
award earlier made by the City of Cebu. They also consigned with the court the amount
representing the balance of the purchase price which petitioner allegedly refused to
accept.

ISSUE: W/N the award at the public auction sale was valid and binding between
Morales and City of Cebu.

RULING: YES. Petition denied. It does not matter that Morales merely matched the bid
of the highest bidder at the said auction sale. The contract of sale was nevertheless
perfected as to Morales, since she merely stepped into the shoes of the highest bidder.
Consequently, there was a meeting of minds between the City of Cebu and Morales as
to the lot sold and its price, such that each party could reciprocally demand performance
of the contract from the other. A contract of sale is a consensual contract and is
perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object
of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally
demand performance subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of
contracts. The elements of a valid contract of sale under Article 1458 of the Civil Code
are: (1) consent or meeting of the minds; (2) determinate subject matter; and (3) price
certain in money or its equivalent. All these elements were present in the transaction
between the City of Cebu and Morales.
 175
Engel v. Mariano Velasco & Co.
47 Phil. 115 [1924]