G.R. No. 182537. Mactan-Cebu International Airport AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. RICHARD E. UNCHUAN, Respondent

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 791 9/14/19, 6:43 PM
G.R. No. 182537. June 1, 2016.*
MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. RICHARD E. UNCHUAN,
respondent.
Civil Law; Sale of Real Property by Agent; Agency; 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.·The significance of requiring the authority of an
agent to be put into writing was amplified in Dizon v. Court of
Appeals, 396 SCRA 151 (2003): 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.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2f58995c9ec90c03003600fb002c009e/p/ATK033/?username=Guest Page 1 of 26
Same; Same; Laches; Laches will not set in against a void

transaction where the agent did not have a special power of attorney
(SPA) to dispose of the lots co-owned by the other registered owners.
·The rule is that a void contract produces no effect either against
or in favor of anyone and cannot be ratified. Similarly, laches will
not set in against a void transaction, as in this case, where the
agent did not have a special power of attorney to dispose of the lots
co-owned by the other registered owners. In fact, Article 1410 of the
Civil Code
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
582
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Unchuan
specifically provides that an action to declare the inexistence of

a void contract does not prescribe. The transaction entered into by
Atanacio and CAA, however, was not entirely void because the lack
of consent by the other co-owners in the sale was with respect to
their shares only. Article 493 of the New Civil Code expressly
provides: Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of
his part and the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute
another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are
involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with
respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may
be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-
ownership.
Same; Co-ownership; Since a co-owner is entitled to sell his
undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one (1) co-owner
without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void; only
the rights of the co-owner/seller are transferred, thereby making the
buyer a co-owner of the property.·The quoted provision recognizes
the absolute right of a co-owner to freely dispose of his pro
indiviso share as well as the fruits and other benefits arising from
that share, independently of the other co-owners. The sale of the
subject lots affects only the sellerÊs share pro indiviso, and the
transferee gets only what corresponds to his grantorÊs share in the
partition of the property owned in common. Since a co-owner is
entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by
one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null
and void; only the rights of the co-owner/seller are transferred,
thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Disputable Presumptions; Section 3,
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court identifies the following as disputable
presumptions: (1) private transactions have been fair and regular;
(2) the ordinary course of business has been followed; and (3) there
was sufficient consideration for a contract.·Section 3, Rule 131 of
the Rules of Court identifies the following as disputable
presumptions: (1) private transactions have been fair and regular;
(2) the ordinary course of business has been followed; and (3) there
was sufficient consideration for a contract. A presumption may
operate against a challenger who has not presented any proof to
rebut it. „The effect of a legal presumption upon a burden of proof is
to create the necessity of presenting evidence to meet the legal
presumption or the prima
583
VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 583

facie case created thereby, and which, if no proof to the contrary

is presented and offered, will prevail. The burden of proof remains
where it is, but by the presumption, the one who has that burden is
relieved for the time being from introducing evidence in support of
the averment, because the presumption stands in the place of
evidence unless rebutted.‰ Atanacio, by affixing his signature on the
deed of absolute sale, a disputable presumption arose that
consideration was paid. A mere allegation that no payment was
received is not sufficient to dispel such legal presumption.
Furthermore, the record shows an official communication, dated
October 8, 1958, from the District Land Office of Cebu to the

Provincial Treasurer of Cebu stating that Provincial Voucher No.
05358 was disbursed in favor of Atanacio.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Gica, Del Socorro, Espinoza, Villarmia, Tan and
Fernandez for respondent.
MENDOZA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of

the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA),
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
assails the November 29, 2007 Decision2 and the March 25,
2008 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in C.A.-G.R.
CV No. 01306, which affirmed the March 3, 2006
Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court, Lapu-Lapu City,
Branch 27 (RTC), in Civil Case No.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 114-186.

2 Id., at pp. 194-215. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta,
with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Priscilla J. Baltazar-
Padilla, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 217-221.
4 Id., at pp. 290-317. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Geraldine
Faith A. Econg.
584

6120-L, an action for declaration of nullity of deed of

absolute sale, quieting of title and/or payment of just
compensation, rental, damages, and attorneyÊs fees.
The Antecedents
On March 5, 2004, respondent Richard Unchuan

(Unchuan) filed a complaint for Partial Declaration of
Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale with Plea for Partition,
Damages and AttorneyÊs Fees before the RTC against
MCIAA.5 Unchuan later filed an Amended Complaint for
Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale, Quieting of
Title and/or Payment of Just Compensation, Rental and
Damages and AttorneyÊs Fees.6
In his complaint, Unchuan alleged, among others, that
he was the legal and rightful owner of Lot No. 4810-A,
with an area of 177,176 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. RO-1173;7 that the title was
registered under the names of the heirs of Eugenio
Godinez, specifically, Teodora Tampus, Fernanda Godinez
(the wife of Iscolastico Epe), Tomasa Godinez (the wife of
Mateo Ibañez), Sotera Godinez (the wife of Guillermo Pino),
Atanasio Godinez8 (married to Florencia Pino), Juana
Godinez (the wife of Catalino Cuison), and Ambrosio
Godinez (married to Mamerta Inot); and that he bought the
two lots from the surviving heirs of the registered owners
through several deeds of absolute sale, all dated December
7, 1998.9
_______________
5 Records (Vol. I), pp. 1-9.

6 Id., at pp. 103-112.
7 CA Rollo, pp. 114-115.
8 Also referred to as Atanacio Godinez.
9 Records (Vol. I), pp. 12-56.
585
VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 585
For reference, the table below summarizes the sale

transactions between Unchuan and the aforesaid surviving
heirs of the original registered owners:
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),19 the
predecessor of MCIAA; that the sale covered by the Deed of
Absolute Sale,20 dated April 3, 1958, was null and void
because the registered
_______________
10 Id., Annex „B,‰ pp. 115-121.

11 Id., Annex „B-1,‰ pp. 122-123.
12 Id., Annex „B-2,‰ pp. 124-129.
13 Id., Annex „B-3,‰ pp. 130-132.
14 Id., Annex „B-4‰ and Annex „B-5,‰ pp. 133-138.
15 Id., Annex „B-6,‰ Annex „B-7,‰ Annex „B-8‰ and Annex „B-10,‰ pp.
139-144; 152-154.
16 Id., Annex „B-9,‰ pp. 145-150.
17 Id., Annex „B-11,‰ pp. 155-157.
18 Id., Annex „B-12,‰ pp. 158-159.
19 The CAA became Bureau of Air Transportation, which later
renamed Air Transportation Office.
20 Rollo, pp. 501-504.
586

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.21
In its Motion to Dismiss, dated April 27, 2004,22 MCIAA

moved for the dismissal of the said complaint citing
prescription, laches and estoppel as its grounds. The RTC,
however, denied the motion.23 MCIAA later filed its Very
Urgent Motion for Compulsory Joinder of Indispensable
Parties,24 but the RTC issued a denial in the Order,25 dated
November 5, 2004, and required MCIAA to file an Answer.
Again, MCIAA moved for reconsideration,26 but the RTC
still denied it in the Order,27 dated January 5, 2005.
In its Answer,28 MCIAA averred that on April 3, 1958,
Atanacio, acting as the representative of the heirs of
Eugenio Godinez, who were the registered owners, sold Lot
No. 4810-A and Lot No. 4810-B to the Republic of the
Philippines, represented by CAA. Thereafter, CAA took
possession of the said property upon payment of the
purchase price. To corroborate the said transaction, on
September 17, 1969, Atanacio, along with other former
registered co-owners, signed a deed of partition attesting to
the fact of sale of the two lots in favor of the government
and admitted its absolute right over the same.
_______________
21 Id., at p. 754.
22 Id., at pp. 241-250.
23 Id., at p. 251.
24 Id., at pp. 252-255.
25 Id., at pp. 256-257.
26 Id., at pp. 258-275.
27 Id., at p. 276.
28 Id., at pp. 277-288.
587
VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 587

Since then, the said lots had been in the possession of

the Republic in the concept of an owner. The said real
properties were declared by the Republic for taxation
purposes under Tax Declaration No. 00078 and Tax
Declaration No. 00092. In fact, by virtue of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 6958, otherwise known as „The Charter of
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority,‰ the
Republic officially turned over the management of the said
lots to MCIAA.
On March 3, 2006, the RTC rendered judgment in favor
of Unchuan. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the above as premises, this court

hereby renders judgment in favor of Plaintiff
Unchuan and against Defendant MCIAA and
declares:
a. The Deed of Sale signed by Atanacio
Godinez alienating the lands denominated as
Lot Nos. 4810-A and 4810-B in favor of
DefendantÊs predecessor-in-interest as VOID;
b. Plaintiff as the true and legal owner of
Lot Nos. 4810-A and 4810-B consisting of ONE
HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE THOUSAND
NINE HUNDRED SIXTEEN (179,916)
SQUARE METERS because the Deed of Sale
between Plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest is
void;
c. The Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City
to annotate in OCT No. RO-1173 up to the
extent of the right of Plaintiff in the said land
and to subsequently issue a title in his name up
to such extent;
d. Defendant is directed to vacate from Lot
Nos. 4810-A and 4810-B;
e. Defendant to pay the sum of TWENTY
PESOS (Php20.00) per square meter per month
as rental reckoned from the time of the filing of
the complaint until Defendant shall vacate the
same.
No pronouncement as to the cost of this suit.
588

SO ORDERED.29
The 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. „This lack of authority of Atanacio
Godinez, therefore, has an effect of making the contract of
sale between the partiesÊ predecessors-in-interest as void
except perhaps for the share of Atanacio Godinez which he
could very well alienate.‰ Moreover, the documentation of
the sale was never transmitted to CAAÊs Manila Office;
hence, the heirs did not receive any payment for the sale
transaction.30
The RTC also noted that the deed of absolute sale
presented to the trial court did not bear the signature of
the then CAA Administrator which would have shown that
the vendee consented to the sale. Thus, the RTC concluded
that (1) there was no valid consideration for the alleged
conveyance; (2) Atanacio lacked the authority to alienate
the undivided shares of his coheirs to CAA, MCIAAÊs
predecessor-in-interest; and (3) the lack of signature of the
CAA Administrator was indicative of the lack of consent
from him to purchase the lots.31
Aggrieved, MCIAA appealed the said decision to the CA.
On November 29, 2007, the CA affirmed the RTC
decision. The CA explained that 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 as required in Article 1874 of the
New Civil Code. Also, no evidence was adduced to show
that the purchase price for the said lots was paid. For being
a void contract, the heirsÊ deed of partition acknowledging
the purported sale in favor of CAA was found by the CA to

have produced no legal
589
VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 589

effects and not susceptible of ratification. It was of the

view that prescription, estoppel or laches did not set in
because a void contract could be questioned anytime and an
action or defense for the declaration of its inexistence or
absolute nullity was imprescriptible. It also noted that the
deed of absolute sale was not signed by the then CAA
authorized representative.32
MCIAA filed its Motion for Reconsideration,33 dated

December 18, 2007, and subsequently, its Supplemental
Motion for Reconsideration,34 dated January 30, 2008.
Later, MCIAA filed its Motion for New Trial,35 dated March
6, 2008, in which it incorporated three newly discovered
evidence: a) certified true copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale
executed between Atanacio Godinez and the Republic,
represented by CAA, with the signature of then
Administrator Urbano B. Caldoza (Caldoza) showing that
the vendee consented to the sale;36 b) certified true copy of
the Joint Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale of Alloted
Shares Already Adjudicated and Quitclaim of a Portion of
Lot No. 4810, dated July 21, 1969, executed by the other
heirs who did not sign the Deed of Partition acknowledging
the sale; and c) certified true copy of the Provincial Voucher
with attachments showing that there was payment of the
purchase price. MCIAA claimed that the said documents
would prove that there was consent between the
contracting parties and that the consideration was paid.
In its March 25, 2008 Resolution,37 the CA denied
MCIAAÊs Motion for Reconsideration. Before MCIAA
received its copy of the March 25, 2008 CA Resolution, it
filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration adopting
the said newly discovered evidence. The CA Resolution
partly reads:
_______________
32 Id., at pp. 201-212.

33 Id., at pp. 399-426.
34 Id., at pp. 427-448.
35 Id., at pp. 450-464.
36 Id., at pp. 470-473.
37 Id., at pp. 217-221.
590

After a very careful read-through of the motion for

reconsideration, we find no new or substantial
arguments which have not been presented in
defendant-appellantÊs prior pleadings and which have
not been taken up or considered in our Decision, save
for the allegation that the proper remedy should have
been a petition for just compensation.
Otherwise, no further ratiocination is needed to
show there was a valid sale between the registered
owners of the subject lots and the Civil Aeronautics
Administration (CAA), the predecessor-in-interest of
defendant-appellant MCIAA. There was absolutely no
competent evidence to prove that all of the registered
owners of the subject properties gave their consent to
the sale through their attorney-in-fact or that the
CAA through its authorized representative gave his
approval to the sale or that there was consideration.
In addition, we see no reason to discuss again our
finding that prescription, laches, or estoppel is
unavailing against the registered owners and equally
unavailing against the latterÊs successorÊs, including
herein plaintiff-appellee, they having stepped into the
shoes of the decedents-registered owners by operation
of law.
Allow us, however, to revisit the defendant-
appellantÊs claim that extrinsic fraud prevented it
from having a fair trial and completely presenting its
case before the trial court, clearly adverting to the
omission of Atty. Sigfredo V. Dublin to timely apprise
the OSG of the adverse claim (in favor of defendant-
appellant) that was annotated in the Original
Certificate of Title No. RO-1173 on October 9, 1998.
In our decision, we stressed that even if there was
a belated annotation of the adverse claim in OCT No.
RO-1173, said annotation is of no force and effect
since the same was predicated on a void and
inexistent contract. For like „the spring that cannot
rise above its source,‰ a void contract cannot create a
valid and legally enforceable right.
Anent the allegation of extrinsic fraud, we are not
at all persuaded there was one. „Extrinsic or
collateral
591
VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 591

fraud, as distinguished from intrinsic fraud,

connotes any fraudulent scheme executed by a
prevailing litigant outside the trial of a case against
the defeated party, or his agent, attorneys or
witnesses, whereby said defeated party, is prevented
from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case.‰
. . . In other words, extrinsic fraud is one that affects
and goes into the jurisdiction of the Court or that the
defendant-appellant was deprived of due process of
law owing to the gross negligence of its counsel. Both
do not, however, obtain under the circumstances
prevailing in the instant case.
Firstly, defendant-appellant has not shown any
clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff-
appellee employed actual and extrinsic fraud in
procuring a favorable decision from the trial court.

Sadly, it failed to show that it was prevented by the
plaintiff-appellee from asserting its right over the
subject properties and properly presenting its case by
reason of such alleged fraud; neither was any
evidence proffered to substantiate such allegation.
And secondly, it bears to stress that the failure of
Arty. Sigfredo V. Dublin to fully apprise the OSG of
the annotation of the defendant-appellantÊs adverse
claim is not tantamount to gross negligence of
counsel. With due and reasonable diligence, the said
annotation could have been timely presented by the
OSG during the presentation of evidence. It bears to
stress that the office which has custody of OCT No.
RO-1173 (where the adverse claim is annotated) is
another government agency, The Registry of Deeds,
which the OSG can easily have access to.
As we have held in our decision, the defendant-
appellantÊs heavy reliance on the Deed of Partition
which contained the phrase: Lot No. 4810-A, with an
area of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX
(177,176) square meters and Lot 4810-B,with [an]
area of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED
FORTY (2,740) square meters, ARE OWNED by the
Civil Aeronautics Administration having bought the
same from the original owners; (Emphasis supplied)
592

to support its assertion that the Civil Aeronautics

Administration (predecessor-in-interest of MCIAA)
had indeed validly purchased the lots from the
registered owners through their purported attorney-
in-fact, Atanacio Godinez, is misplaced. This Court
had already found and ruled that:
„... At most, the above quoted statement is a
mistaken conclusion that the CAA validly

purchased the subject lots. The above quoted
statement does not change the fact that the
Deed of Sale in favor of CAA was void and
inexistent. Neither can the same be considered
as a cure for the defect of lack of consent or
authority.‰
„Lack of consent and consideration made the deeds
of sale void altogether and rendered them subject to
attack at any time, conformably to the rule in Article
1410 that an action to declare the existence of void
contracts does not prescribe.‰ We would like to add
that there is even „no need of an action to set aside a
void and inexistent contract; in fact, such action
cannot logically exist. However, an action to declare
the nonexistence of the contract can be maintained;
and in the same action, the plaintiff may recover what
he has given by virtue of the contract.‰38
Undaunted, MCIAA filed this present action, praying for

the reversal of the assailed CA ruling and for a new
judgment dismissing the complaint against MCIAA or, in
the alternative, to remand the case to the CA to thresh out
all unresolved factual issues concerning the case. To bolster
the reliefs prayed for, MCIAA offers the following:
_______________
38 Id., at pp. 217-220.
592

Grounds Relied Upon

in Support of the Petition
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A

SERIOUS ERROR IN LAW WHEN IT AFFIRMED
THE MARCH 3, 2006 DECISION OF THE TRIAL
COURT DESPITE THE FACT THAT:
A
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
DECLARING THAT ATANACIO GODINEZ WAS
NOT AUTHORIZED TO CONVEY LOT NOS.
4810-A AND 4810-B TO CAA.
B
FINDING THAT RESPONDENTSÊ
PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST WERE NOT
PAID THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE
OF THE SUBJECT LOTS.
C
DECLARING AS VOID AND INVALID THE
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE EXECUTED BY
ATANACIO GODINEZ IN FAVOR OF THE CAA.
D
HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTÊS
PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST ARE NOT
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE INSTANT
CASE.
E
DECLARING THAT RESPONDENTÊS CAUSE OF
ACTION IS NOT BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION,
LACHES AND ESTOPPEL.
594
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A

SERIOUS ERROR IN LAW BY NOT ADMITTING
THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE
INTRODUCED BY PETITIONER.39
The OSG argues that „the mere absence of a special

power of attorney in favor of Atanacio Godinez does not
necessarily mean that he was not authorized by his co-
owners who even authorized and represented to CAA that
Atanacio Godinez was their attorney-in-fact.‰40 „Even
granting for the sake of argument that Atanacio Godinez
was not in fact authorized by the other registered co-
owners to execute a deed conveying Lot Nos. 4810-A and
4810-B to CAA, such defect has nevertheless been cured
when his co-owners subsequently executed on September
17, 1969 a public document denominated as Deed of
Partition.‰41 As to the nonpayment of consideration, the
OSG contends that such allegation cannot be established
by mere testimonial evidence and that it must be proved by
clear, positive and convincing evidence.42 Moreover, „not
only are private transactions presumed to be fair and
regular and that the ordinary course of business presumed
to have been followed but, also, government employees are
presumed to have regularly performed their official duties.
In this case, Unchuan has not overcome the foregoing legal
presumptions.‰43
The OSG further avers that „the absence of the
signature of Administrator Caldoza on the challenged Deed
of Absolute Sale should, at best, be treated as a mere
formal defect which should not affect the very substance of
the contract‰44 bearing
_______________
40 Id., at p. 685.
41 Id., at p. 686.
42 Id., at p. 691.
43 Id., at pp. 691-692.
44 Id., at p. 696.
595
VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 595

in mind that „a contract of sale is a consensual

contract.‰45 The OSG likewise posits that „assuming
arguendo that petitioner does not possess any title or right
whatsoever over the above parcels of land, its possession is
justified by extraordinary prescription.‰46 It also claims
that laches had set in against the original registered
owners for their failure to question the validity of the sale
for over forty-six (46) years after the sale transaction
between CAA and Atanacio in 1958.47 Thus, „the laches of
the original registered owners extend to Unchuan since he
stands in privity with his predecessors-in-interest.‰48
The OSG insists that extrinsic fraud was committed
against it as Atty. Sigfredo Dublin (Atty. Dublin), the legal
manager of CAA, withheld from their office, while the trial
was ongoing, the information that on October 9, 1998, he
had caused the annotation of an adverse claim on OCT No.
RO-1173. The OSG asserts that it was significant because
the deed of absolute sale between Unchuan and the alleged
heirs of the registered owners was executed only on
December 7, 1998. Also suppressed from the OSG, as it
claims, were the following:
1. Deed of Absolute Sale executed between

Atanacio Godinez and the CAA bearing the signature
of Urbano B. Caldoza, then CAA Administrator.
2. Joint Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale of
Allotted Shares Already Adjudicated and Quitclaim of
a Portion of Lot No. 4810, Open Cadastre, executed by
the heirs of Juana Godinez.
3. Extra-Judicial Declaration of Partition and
Adjudication executed by Tomasa Godinez, Atanacio
Godinez, Mamerta Inot (for Ambrosio Godinez), Pedro
Pino (for
_______________
45 Id., at p. 695.
46 Id., at p. 703.
47 Id., at pp. 703-704.
48 Id., at p. 705.
596

Sotera Godinez) and Corazon Epe (for Fernanda

Godinez).
4. Provincial Voucher, dated October 3, 1958 (and
its attachments) evidencing payment of the
consideration for the sale of Lot Nos. 4810-A and
4810-B.
The OSG argues that these documents are very

important and material to petitionerÊs def ense and should
be admitted to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
The CourtÊs Ruling
The RTC decision, as affirmed by the CA, needs to be

modified.
The 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, which provide:
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.
Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney are
necessary in the following cases:
xxx
(5) To enter into any contract by which the
ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired
either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration.
xxx
597
VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 597

The significance of requiring the authority of an agent to

be put into writing was amplified in Dizon v. Court of
Appeals:49
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.
Without a special power of attorney specifying his

authority to dispose of an immovable, Atanacio could not be
legally considered as the representative of the other
registered co-owners of the properties in question.
AtanacioÊs act of conveying Lot No. 4810-A and Lot No.
4810-B cannot be a valid source of obligation to bind all the
other registered co-owners and their heirs because he was
not clothed with any authority to enter into a contract with
CAA. The other heirs could not
_______________
49 444 Phil. 161, 165-166; 396 SCRA 151, 155 (2003), citing Cosmic
Lumber Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil. 948, 957-958; 265 SCRA 168,
176 (1996).
598

have given their consent as required under Article

147550 of the New Civil Code because there was no meeting
of the minds among the other registered co-owners who
gave no written authority to Atanacio to transact on their
behalf. Therefore, no contract was perfected insofar as the
portions or shares of the other registered co-owners or their
heirs were concerned.
Thus, the Court cannot give any weight either to the
Deed of Partition of Lot No. 4810, Open Cadastre51
(subsequently executed by all the heirs of Ambrosio and
Sotera Godinez to the effect that they had acknowledged52
the sale of the subject lots in favor of CAA) or to other
documents (such as Joint Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale
of Allotted Shares Already Adjudicated and Quitclaim of a
Portion of Lot No. 4810, Open Cadastre)53 all of which gave
the impression that they had ratified54 the sale of the

subject lots in favor of CAA, MCIAAÊs predecessor-in-
interest.
_______________
50 Art. 1475. The contract of sale 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.
51 Rollo, pp. 506-507.
52 Lot No. 4810-A with an area of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-
SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX (177,176) square
meters and Lot No. 4810-B, with [an] area of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED FORTY (2,740) square meters, are owned by the Civil
Aeronautics Administration, having bought the same from the original
owners.
53 Rollo, pp. 474-475.
54 3. That this affidavit is jointly executed by US, the undersigned
affiants, to establish the fact of sale and conveyance of a portion of Lot
4810 by the heirs of JUANA GODINEZ, specifically the area of some
177,173 sq. meters, more or less, of Lot 4810, to the CAA Mactan Airport,
Lapu-Lapu City, Philippines; confirming voluntarily said conveyance;
quitting forever whatever right, interest
599
VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 599

The rule is that a void contract produces no effect either

against or in favor of anyone and cannot be ratified.55
Similarly, laches will not set in against a void transaction,
as in this case, where the agent did not have a special
power of attorney to dispose of the lots co-owned by the
other registered owners. In fact, Article 1410 of the Civil
Code specifically provides that an action to declare the
inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe.

The transaction entered into by Atanacio and CAA,
however, was not entirely void because the lack of consent
by the other co-owners in the sale was with respect to their
shares only. Article 493 of the New Civil Code expressly
provides:
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full

ownership of his part and the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate,
assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another
person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights
are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be
limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in
the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
The quoted provision recognizes the absolute right of a

co-owner to freely dispose of his pro indiviso share as well
as the fruits and other benefits arising from that share,
independently of the other co-owners. The sale of the
subject lots affects only the sellerÊs share pro indiviso, and
the transferee gets only what corresponds to his grantorÊs
share in the partition of the property owned in common.
Since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a
sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the
consent of the other co-
_______________
and participation we have or we may have over the remaining portion

of 55,426 sq. meters, of Lot 4810, by reason of the said sale and
conveyance by the said heirs of JUANA GODINEZ.
55 Roberts v. Papio, 544 Phil. 280, 303; 515 SCRA 346, 371 (2007).
600

owners is not null and void; only the rights of the co-
owner/seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a
co-owner of the property.56
In the case at bench, although the sale transaction
insofar as the other heirs of the registered owners was void,
the sale insofar as the extent of AtanacioÊs interest is
concerned, remains valid. Atanacio was one of the
registered co-owners of the subject lots, but he was not
clothed with authority to transact for the other co-owners.
By signing the deed of sale with the CAA, Atanacio
effectively sold his undivided share in the lots in question.
Thus, CAA became a co-owner of the undivided subject lots.
Accordingly, AtanacioÊs heirs could no longer alienate
anything in favor of Unchuan because he already conveyed
his pro indiviso share to CAA.
The Court does not accept either UnchuanÊs allegation
that no payment was received for the transaction between
Atanacio and CAA. Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of
Court identifies the following as disputable presumptions:
(1) private transactions have been fair and regular; (2) the
ordinary course of business has been followed; and (3) there
was sufficient consideration for a contract. A presumption
may operate against a challenger who has not presented
any proof to rebut it. „The effect of a legal presumption
upon a burden of proof is to create the necessity of
presenting evidence to meet the legal presumption or
the prima facie case created thereby, and which, if no proof
to the contrary is presented and offered, will prevail. The
burden of proof remains where it is, but by the
presumption, the one who has that burden is relieved for
the time being from introducing evidence in support of the
averment, because the presumption stands in the place of
evidence unless rebutted.‰57 Atanacio, by affixing his signa-
_______________
56 Fernandez v. Fernandez, 416 Phil. 322, 343; 363 SCRA 811, 829
(2001).
57 Surtida v. Rural Bank of Malinao (Albay), Inc., 540 Phil. 502, 514-
515; 511 SCRA 507, 519-520 (2006).
601
VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 601

ture on the deed of absolute sale, a disputable

presumption arose that consideration was paid. A mere
allegation that no payment was received is not sufficient to
dispel such legal presumption. Furthermore, the record
shows an official communication, dated October 8, 1958,
from the District Land Office of Cebu to the Provincial
Treasurer of Cebu stating that Provincial Voucher No.
05358 was disbursed in favor of Atanacio.58
Consequently, the Court deems it just and fair to modify
the disposition of the subject lots to Unchuan. Unchuan is
not entitled to the whole 179,916 square meters of the
property, as originally awarded by the RTC and affirmed by
the CA. AtanacioÊs share should be excluded from the
computation as his heirs were already precluded from
further conveying what he, their predecessor-in-interest,
had previously sold to CAA. Thus, Unchuan is only legally
entitled to an unidentified 149,930 square meters of the
property after excluding AtanacioÊs unidentified share of
29,986 square meters.
The Court notes that the lots in question were formerly
undeveloped lands, but now form part of the Mactan-Cebu
International Airport. It is, thus, being used for a public
purpose. It being the situation, the government or the
MCIAA should initiate expropriation proceedings so that
the registered owners or successors-in-interest would be
compensated for their undivided shares in the lots taken
from them. In the meantime, MCIAA should pay rentals
thereon, after these shall have been identified and
segregated, at the rate of P20.00 per square meter to be
reckoned from the filing of the complaint.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The November 29, 2007 Decision and the
March 25, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 01306 are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Accordingly, the dispositive portion of
the decision should read as follows:
_______________
58 Rollo, p. 505.
602

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered

declaring that:
a. The Deed of Sale signed by Atanacio
Godinez alienating the lands denominated as
Lot No. 4810-A and Lot No. 4810-B in favor of
MCIAAÊs predecessor-in-interest is VALID,
insofar as his undivided share in the said lots is
concerned, but VOID, insofar as the undivided
shares of the other registered owners, who did
not sign the deed, are concerned; and
b. Plaintiff Richard E. Unchuan is the true
and legal owner of portions of Lot No. 4810-A
and Lot No. 4810-B consisting of One Hundred
Forty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty
(149,930) Square Meters.
The Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City is hereby
ordered to annotate in OCT No. RO-1173 the
respective rights of Richard E. Unchuan and the
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority in the
said property.
The Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority
is ordered to initiate expropriation proceedings over
the undivided portions of Lots No. 4810-A and 4810-B
covering the said 149,930 Square Meters.
In the meantime, Mactan-Cebu International
Airport Authority is ordered to pay the sum of P20.00
per square meter per month as rental for the use of
the property reckoned from the time of the filing of
the complaint until its final payment for the same.
603
VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 603

No pronouncement as to the cost of the suit.

SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo and Leonen, JJ.,

concur.
Brion, J., On Official Leave.
Petition partially granted, judgment and resolution

affirmed with modification.
Notes.·Where the co-owners affixed their signatures

on the Contract to Sell, they were no longer selling their
shares through an agent but, rather, they were selling the
same directly and in their own right · a written authority
is no longer necessary to empower an agent. (Oesmer vs.
Paraiso Development Corporation, 514 SCRA 228 [2007])
The well-established rule is when a sale of a parcel 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. (Bautista-Spille vs. Nicorp Management
and Development Corporation, 773 SCRA 67 [2015])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

G.R. No. 182537. Mactan-Cebu International Airport AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. RICHARD E. UNCHUAN, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 182537. Mactan-Cebu International Airport AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. RICHARD E. UNCHUAN, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 182537. Mactan-Cebu International Airport AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. RICHARD E. UNCHUAN, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 791 9/14/19, 6:43 PM

G.R. No. 182537. June 1, 2016.*

MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Civil Law; Sale of Real Property by Agent; Agency; When the

Same; Same; Laches; Laches will not set in against a void

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

specifically provides that an action to declare the inexistence of

VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 583

facie case created thereby, and which, if no proof to the contrary

October 8, 1958, from the District Land Office of Cebu to the

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of

1 Rollo, pp. 114-186.

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

6120-L, an action for declaration of nullity of deed of

compensation, rental, damages, and attorneyÊs fees.

On March 5, 2004, respondent Richard Unchuan

5 Records (Vol. I), pp. 1-9.

VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 585

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Unchuan

For reference, the table below summarizes the sale

Unchuan further alleged that he came to know that

10 Id., Annex „B,‰ pp. 115-121.

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

owners and their heirs did not authorize Atanacio to sell

In its Motion to Dismiss, dated April 27, 2004,22 MCIAA

VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 587

Since then, the said lots had been in the possession of

WHEREFORE, the above as premises, this court

No pronouncement as to the cost of this suit.

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The RTC held that Atanacio was not legally authorized

the purported sale in favor of CAA was found by the CA to

VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 589

effects and not susceptible of ratification. It was of the

MCIAA filed its Motion for Reconsideration,33 dated

32 Id., at pp. 201-212.

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

After a very careful read-through of the motion for

VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 591

fraud, as distinguished from intrinsic fraud,

procuring a favorable decision from the trial court.

592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

to support its assertion that the Civil Aeronautics

mistaken conclusion that the CAA validly

Undaunted, MCIAA filed this present action, praying for

38 Id., at pp. 217-220.

592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Grounds Relied Upon

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Unchuan

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A

The OSG argues that „the mere absence of a special

VOL. 791, JUNE 1, 2016 595

in mind that „a contract of sale is a consensual

1. Deed of Absolute Sale executed between

596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sotera Godinez) and Corazon Epe (for Fernanda