SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 214057. October 19, 2015.]

FLORENTINA BAUTISTA-SPILLE represented by her Attorney-

in-fact, Manuel B. Flores, Jr., petitioner, vs. NICORP
MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
BENJAMIN G. BAUTISTA and INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE
BANK, respondents.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court assailing the March 19, 2014 Decision 1 and the August 18,
2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 97682,
which reversed and set aside the May 24, 2010 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 90, Dasmariñas, Cavite (RTC), in Civil Case No. 0321-04,
declaring a contract to sell null and void.
The Facts:
Petitioner Florentina Bautista-Spille (petitioner) is the registered owner
of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-197,
located in Imus City, Cavite, with an area of more or less 33,052 square
meters (subject property).
On June 20, 1996, petitioner and her spouse, Harold E. Spille, executed a
document denominated as General Power of Attorney 4 in favor of her brother,
respondent Benjamin Bautista (Benjamin), authorizing the latter to
administer all her businesses and properties in the Philippines. The said
document was notarized before the Consulate General of the Philippines, New
York, United States of America.
On August 13, 2004, Benjamin and NICORP Management and
Development Corporation (NICORP) entered into a contract to sell 5 which
pertained to the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-197 for the agreed
amount of P15,000,000.00. In the said contract, NICORP agreed to give a
down payment equivalent to 20% of the purchase price and pay the
remaining balance in eight (8) months. It was also agreed that upon receipt of
the down payment, the TCT of the subject property would be deposited with
the International Exchange Bank (IE Bank) and placed in escrow. It would only
be released upon full payment of the agreed amount. Furthermore, Benjamin
was required to submit a special power of attorney (SPA) covering the sale
transaction, otherwise, the payment of the balance would be suspended and a
penalty of P150,000.00 every month would be imposed.
Pursuant thereto, an Escrow Agreement, 6 dated October 13, 2004, was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 executed designating IE Bank as the Escrow Agent, obliging the latter to hold
and take custody of TCT No. T-197, and to release the said title to NICORP
upon full payment of the subject property.
On October 14, 2004, NICORP issued a check in the amount of
P2,250,000.00, representing the down payment of the subject property. 7
Thereafter, the TCT was deposited with IE Bank and placed in escrow.
When petitioner discovered the sale, her lawyer immediately sent
demand letters 8 to NICORP and Benjamin, both dated October 27, 2004, and
to IE Bank, dated October 28, 2004, informing them that she was opposing
the sale of the subject property and that Benjamin was not clothed with
authority to enter into a contract to sell and demanding the return of the
owner's copy of the certificate of title to her true and lawful attorney-in-fact,
Manuel B. Flores, Jr. (Flores). NICORP, Benjamin and IE Bank, however, failed
and refused to return the title of the subject property.
Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint 9 before the RTC against
Benjamin, NICORP and IE Bank for declaration of nullity of the contract to sell,
injunction, recovery of possession and damages with prayer for the issuance of
a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction because NICORP
was starting the development of the subject property into a residential
subdivision and was planning to sell the lots to prospective buyers. Petitioner
denied receiving the down payment for the subject property.
The RTC granted the writ of preliminary injunction in its Order, 10 dated
January 24, 2005, enjoining NICORP and all persons acting on its behalf from
making or introducing improvements, subdividing and selling any subdivided
lot of the subject property. CAIHTE

In its Answer, 11 NICORP asked for the dismissal of the case for lack of a
cause of action and averred that Benjamin was empowered to enter into a
contract to sell by virtue of the general power of attorney; that the said
authority was valid and subsisting as there was no specific instrument that
specifically revoked his authority; that assuming Bautista exceeded his
authority when he executed the contract to sell, the agreement was still valid
and enforceable as the agency was already "coupled with interest" because of
the partial payment in the amount of P3,000,000.00; and that the contract
could not just be revoked without NICORP being reimbursed of its down
payment and the costs for the initial development it had incurred in
developing the subject property into a residential subdivision.
For its part, IE Bank denied any liability and alleged that petitioner had
no cause of action against it. IE Bank asserted that, at the time of its
constitution as an escrow agent, Benjamin possessed the necessary authority
from petitioner; that because the contract to sell remained valid, it was duty-
bound to observe its duties and obligations under the Escrow Agreement; and
that in the absence of any order from the court, it was proper for the bank not
to comply with petitioner's demand for the surrender of the certificate of title.
12

Benjamin, on the other hand, did not file any responsive pleading.
Hence, he was declared in default in the RTC Order, 13 dated August 25, 2005.
On May 24, 2010, the RTC rendered its judgment, declaring the contract
to sell null and void. 14 It explained that the general power of authority only
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 pertained to acts of administration over petitioner's businesses and properties
in the Philippines and did not include authority to sell the subject property. It
pointed out that NICORP was well aware of Benjamin's lack of authority to
sell the subject property as gleaned from the contract to sell which required
the latter to procure the SPA from petitioner and even imposed a penalty of
P150,000.00 per month if he would be delayed in securing the SPA. The
dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, declaring the
Contract to Sell, dated October 13, 2004 between the defendant
Bautista and NICORP to be null and void, and the writ of preliminary
injunction is now made permanent, and further ordering the defendants
NICORP and International Exchange Bank as follows —
(a) To return to the plaintiff the peaceful possession of the subject
property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-197 of
the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite;
(b) To return to the plaintiff the Original Owner's Duplicate of Title
No. T-197 of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite;
(c) To pay to the plaintiff the amount of Php250,000.00 by way of
attorney's fees; and
(d) The Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED. 15

Aggrieved, NICORP appealed before the CA.

In the assailed decision, the CA reversed the RTC decision, explaining
that the general power of attorney executed by petitioner in favor of
Benjamin authorized the latter not only to perform acts of administration over
her properties but also to perform acts of dominion which included, among
others, the power to dispose the subject property.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the
assailed CA Resolution, dated August 18, 2014.
Hence, this petition anchored on the following:
GROUNDS
A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE
ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY PETITIONER AUTHORIZED
BENJAMIN BAUTISTA TO ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT TO
SELL WITH RESPONDENT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE
ESTABLISHED PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
IN THE CASE OF LILLIAN N. MERCADO, ET AL. VS. ALLIED
BANKING CORPORATION (G.R. NO. 171460, 24 JULY 2007.
B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE
ERROR IN APPLYING THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LINO
OLAGUER VS. ONGJOCO (G.R. NO. 173312, 26 AUGUST
2008) TO THE INSTANT CASE CONSIDERING THAT THE
ESTABLISHED FACTS HEREIN ARE NOT IN ALL FOURS WITH
THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE DECISION IN THE OLAGUER
VS. ONGJOCO CASE. DETACa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
DISREGARDING (I) RESPONDENT'S JUDICIAL ADMISSION AS
TO BENJAMIN BAUTISTA'S LACK OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER
INTO A CONTRACT TO SELL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND
(II) RESPONDENT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF
THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, INDICATING BAD
FAITH OF THE RESPONDENT.
D. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE
CONTRACT TO SELL NULL AND VOID. 16
Petitioner argues that the general power of attorney did not clothe
Benjamin with the authority to enter into a contract to sell the subject
property. She contends that the general power of attorney pertained to the
power to buy, sell, negotiate and contract over the business and personal
property but did not specifically authorize the sale of the subject property.
Petitioner asserts that the CA erred when it disregarded the stipulation
made by NICORP during the pre-trial proceedings as stated in the pre-trial
order that Benjamin "acted beyond the scope of his authority when he failed
to inform plaintiff personally as to his dealing or negotiation with NICORP and
when he signed the Contract to Sell . . . ." 17 According to petitioner, such an
admission was an indication that NICORP did not consider the general power
of authority as an SPA which would have authorized Benjamin to enter into
the contract to sell.
NICORP counters that the general power of attorney sufficiently
conferred authority on Benjamin to enter into the contract to sell. It asserts
that the written authority, while denominated as a general power of attorney,
expressly authorized him to sell the subject property. NICORP insists that it
was a buyer in good faith and was never negligent in ascertaining the extent
of his authority to sell the property. It explains that though the general power
of attorney sufficiently clothed Bautista with authority to sell the subject
property, it nonetheless required him to submit the SPA in order to comply
with the requirements of the Register of Deeds and the Bureau of Internal
Revenue.
The issue for resolution is whether or not Benjamin was authorized to
sell the subject property.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds the petition meritorious.
In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed
upon by this Court. It is not a function of this Court to analyze and weigh the
evidence presented by the parties all over again. 18 This rule, however, has
several well-recognized exceptions, such as when the factual findings of the
CA and the trial court are conflicting or contradictory. 19
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. Articles 1874 and 1878 of the Civil
Code explicitly provide:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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:
(1) . . .
(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 xxx xxx. [Emphasis Supplied]
From the foregoing, it is clear that an SPA in the conveyance of real
rights over immovable property is necessary. 20 In Cosmic Lumber Corporation
v. Court of Appeals, 21 the Court enunciated,
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." 22
[Emphases Supplied]
To reiterate, such authority must be conferred in writing and must
express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language in order
for the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell the real property. 23 It
is a general rule that a power of attorney must be strictly construed, and
courts will not infer or presume broad powers from deeds which do not
sufficiently include property or subject under which the agent is to deal. 24
Thus, when the authority is couched in general terms, without mentioning
any specific power to sell or mortgage or to do other specific acts of strict
dominion, then only acts of administration are deemed conferred. 25
In the case at bench, the only evidence adduced by NICORP to prove
Benjamin's authority to sell petitioner's property was the document
denominated as General Power of Attorney, dated June 20, 1996. The
pertinent portions of the said document reads:
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THAT I/WE FLORENTINA B. SPILLE, of legal age, single/married to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 HAROLD E. SPILLE and residents of . . . do hereby appoint, name and
constitute BENJAMIN G. BAUTISTA resident(s) of . . . to be my/our true
and lawful attorney(s), to administer and conduct all my/our affairs and
for that purpose in my/our name(s) and on my/our behalf, to do and
execute any or all of the following acts, deeds and things to wit: aDSIHc

1. To exercise administration, general control and supervision over

my/our business and property in the Philippines, and to act
as my/our general representative(s) and agent(s) with full
authority to buy, sell, negotiate and contract for me/us and
my/our behalf;
2. To ask, demand, sue for, recover and receive all sums of money,
debts, dues, goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, effects
and thing of whatsoever nature or description, which now or
hereafter shall be or become due, owing, payable or
belonging to me/us in or by any right, title, ways or means
howsoever, and upon receipt thereof or any part thereof, to
make, sign, execute and deliver such receipts, releases or
other discharges;
xxx xxx xxx 26

Doubtless, there was no perfected contract to sell between petitioner

and NICORP. Nowhere in the General Power of Attorney was Benjamin
granted, expressly or impliedly, any power to sell the subject property or a
portion thereof. The authority expressed in the General Power of Attorney was
couched in very broad terms covering petitioner's businesses and properties.
Time and again, this Court has stressed that the power of administration does
not include acts of disposition, which are acts of strict ownership. As such, an
authority to dispose cannot proceed from an authority to administer, and vice
versa, for the two powers may only be exercised by an agent by following the
provisions on agency of the Civil Code. 27
In the same vein, NICORP cannot be considered a purchaser in good
faith. The well-settled rule is that a person dealing with an assumed agent is
bound to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent
of the agent's authority. 28 The law requires a higher degree of prudence from
one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner. He is expected
to examine all factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there
are any flaws in the title of the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the
land. 29 In ascertaining good faith, or the lack of it, which is a question of
intention, courts are necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the conduct
and outward acts by which alone the inward motive may, with safety, be
determined. Good faith, or want of it, is not a visible, tangible fact that can be
seen or touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be
judged by actual or fancied token or signs. 30
Here, the Court agrees with the RTC that NICORP was fully aware that
Benjamin was not properly authorized to enter into any transaction regarding
the sale of petitioner's property. In fact, in the contract to sell, NICORP
required Benjamin to secure the SPA from petitioner within ninety (90) days
from the execution of the contract and even imposed a substantial amount of
penalty in the amount of P150,000.00 a month in case of noncompliance plus
suspension of payment of the balance of the contract price.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Petitioner's explanation that it obliged Benjamin to secure the SPA in
order to comply with the requirements of the Register of Deeds and the
Bureau of Internal Revenue is bereft of merit. NICORP is a real estate
company which is familiar with the intricacies of the realty business.
Moreover, there was no evidence that petitioner ratified Benjamin's act of
selling the subject property. On the contrary, immediately after the execution
of the contract to sell, petitioner wrote NICORP, IE Bank and Benjamin to
inform them of her opposition to the sale of the subject property and of his
lack of authority to sell it and demand the return of the certificate of title.
Clearly, NICORP was negligent in its dealings with Bautista.
In sum, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusion of the RTC.
The consent of petitioner in the contract to sell was not obtained, hence, not
enforceable. Furthermore, because NICORP is considered a builder in bad faith,
it has no right to be refunded the value of whatever improvements it
introduced on the subject property. 31
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The March 19, 2014 Decision
and the August 18, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
97682 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The May 24, 2010 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Dasmariñas, Cavite, is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-de Castro, * Brion, ** Peralta *** and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 2250, dated October 14, 2015.
** Per Special Order No. 2222, dated September 29, 2015.

*** Per Special Order No. 2223, dated September 29, 2015.
1. Rollo, pp. 41-50. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate
Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Melchor Q.C. Sadang, concurring.
2. Id. at 52-53. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices
Japar B. Dimaampao and Melchor Q.C. Sadang, concurring.
3. Id. at 297-308. Penned by Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller.
4. Id. at 80-81.
5. Id. at 82-85.
6. Id. at 124-128.

7. Annex of the Complaint, records, p. 25.

8. Rollo, pp. 86-91.
9. Id. at 99-110.
10. Records, pp. 158-162.
11. Id. at 136-145.

12. Id. at 130-135.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 13. Id. at 210.
14. Id. at 641-652.
15. Id. at 652.

16. Rollo, p. 17.

17. As quoted in the petition, id. at 26.
18. Dehesa-Inamarga v. Alano, 595 Phil. 294, 300 (2008).
19. Chua v. Soriano, 549 Phil. 578, 588-589 (2007).
20. Woodchild Holdings, Inc. v. Roxas Electric and Construction Company, Inc., 479
Phil. 896, 912 (2004).
21. 332 Phil. 948 (1996).

22. Id. at 957-958.

23. Yoshizaki v. Joy Training Center of Aurora, Inc. , G.R. No. 174978, July 31, 2013,
702 SCRA, 631, 642.

24. Woodchild Holdings, Inc. v. Roxas Electric and Construction Company, Inc.,
supra note 20, at 913.

25. Veloso v. Court of Appeals , 329 Phil. 398, 405 (1996).

26. Rollo, p. 80.
27. Aggabao v. Parulan, 644 Phil. 26, 37 (2010).
28. Lintonjua v. Fernandez, 471 Phil. 440, 458 (2004).
29. Abad v. Guimba, 503 Phil. 321, 331-332 (2005).

30. Philippine National Bank v. Militar, 526 Phil. 788, 798 (2006).
31. Arts. 449 and 546, Civil Code.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com