G.R. No. 165133. April 19, 2010.

*
SPOUSES JOSELINA ALCANTARA AND ANTONIO ALCANTARA, and
SPOUSES JOSEFINO RUBI AND ANNIE DISTOR-RUBI, petitioners, vs.
BRIGIDA L. NIDO, as attorney-in-fact of REVELEN N. SRIVASTAVA,
respondent.
Civil Law; Agency; Sales; Article 1874 of the Civil Code requires a written authority
before an agent can sell an immovable property, likewise, a special power of attorney is
necessary to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted
or acquired for a valuable consideration.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 respondents 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. A special power of attorney is also necessary to
enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired
for a valuable consideration. Without an authority in writing, respondent cannot validly sell
the lot to petitioners. Hence, any sale in favor of the petitioners is void.
Same; Same; Same; A General Power of Attorney executed and acknowledged in the
United States of America cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is certified in accordance
with the Rules of Court by an officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
United States of America.Since the General Power of Attorney was executed and
acknowledged in the United States of America, it cannot be admitted in evidence unless it
is certified as such in accordance with the Rules of Court by an officer in the foreign service
of the Philippines stationed in the United States of America. Hence, this document has no
probative value.
Civil Procedure; Dismissal of Actions; Jurisdiction; Dismissal of a case for lack of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings since jurisdiction is conferred by
law.The general rule is that dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction may be raised at
any stage of the proceedings since jurisdiction is conferred by law. The lack of jurisdiction
affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the
action; otherwise, the inevitable consequence would make the courts decision a lawless
thing. Since the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint filed, all the proceedings as well
as the Decision of 17 June 2002 are void. The complaint should perforce be dismissed.

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.
Rodrigo L. Yuson for petitioners.
A.R. Fulgado & Associates for respondent.

RESOLUTION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Spouses Antonio and Joselina Alcantara and Spouses Josefino and Annie Rubi
(petitioners) filed this Petition for Review1 assailing the Court of Appeals (appellate
court) Decision2 dated 10 June 2004 as well as the Resolution3dated 17 August 2004
in CA-G.R. CV No. 78215. In the assailed decision, the appellate court reversed the
17 June 2002 Decision4 of Branch 69 of the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan,
Rizal (RTC) by dismissing the case for recovery of possession with damages and
preliminary injunction filed by Brigida L. Nido (respondent), in her capacity as
administrator and attorney-in-fact of Revelen N. Srivastava (Revelen).
The Facts
Revelen, who is respondents daughter and of legal age, is the owner of an
unregistered land with an area of 1,939 square meters located in Cardona, Rizal.
Sometime in March 1984, respondent accepted the offer of petitioners to purchase a
200-square meter portion of Revelens lot (lot) at P200 per square meter. Petitioners
paid P3,000 as downpayment and the balance was payable on installment.
Petitioners constructed their houses in 1985. In 1986, with respondents consent,
petitioners occupied an additional 150 square meters of the lot. By 1987, petitioners
had already paid P17,5005 before petitioners defaulted on their installment
payments.
On 11 May 1994, respondent, acting as administrator and attorney-in-fact of
Revelen, filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages and prayer for
preliminary injunction against petitioners with the RTC.
The RTCs Ruling
The RTC stated that based on the evidence presented, Revelen owns the lot and
respondent was verbally authorized to sell 200 square meters to petitioners. The
RTC ruled that since respondents authority to sell the land was not in writing, the
sale was void under Article 18746 of the Civil Code.7 The RTC ruled that rescission
is the proper remedy.8
On 17 June 2002, the RTC rendered its decision, the dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the
defendants, by
1. Declaring the contract to sell orally agreed by the plaintiff Brigida Nido, in
her capacity as representative or agent of her daughter Revelen Nido
Srivastava, VOID and UNENFORCEABLE.

2. Ordering the parties, upon finality of this judgment, to have mutual

restitutionthe defendants and all persons claiming under them to peacefully
vacate and surrender to the plaintiff the possession of the subject lot covered
by TD No. 09-0742 and its derivative Tax Declarations, together with all
permanent improvements introduced thereon, and all improvements built or
constructed during the pendency of this action, in bad faith; and the plaintiff,
to return the sum of P17,500.00, the total amount of the installment on the
land paid by defendant; the fruits and interests during the pendency of the
condition shall be deemed to have been mutually compensated.
3. Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiff the sum of P20,000.00 as attorneys
fees, plus P15,000.00 as actual litigation expenses, plus the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.9
The Appellate Courts Ruling
On 5 January 2004, petitioners appealed the trial courts Decision to the
appellate court. In its decision dated 10 June 2004, the appellate court reversed the
RTC decision and dismissed the civil case.10
The appellate court explained that this is an unlawful detainer case. The prayer
in the complaint and amended complaint was for recovery of possession and the
case was filed within one year from the last demand letter. Even if the complaint
involves a question of ownership, it does not deprive the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case. Petitioners raised the issue of lack
of jurisdiction in their Motion to Dismiss and Answer before the RTC.11 The RTC
denied the Motion to Dismiss and assumed jurisdiction over the case because the
issues pertain to a determination of the real agreement between the parties and
rescission of the contract to sell the property.12
The appellate court added that even if respondents complaint is for recovery of
possession or accion publiciana, the RTC still has no jurisdiction to decide the case.
The appellate court explained:
Note again that the complaint was filed on 11 May 1994. By that time, Republic Act No.
7691 was already in effect. Said law took effect on 15 April 1994, fifteen days after its
publication in the Malaya and in the Time Journal on 30 March 1994 pursuant to Sec. 8 of
Republic Act No. 7691.
Accordingly, Sec. 33 of Batas Pambansa 129 was amended by Republic Act No. 7691
giving the Municipal Trial Court the exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions
involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed
value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000 or, in civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed P50,000, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs.

At bench, the complaint alleges that the whole 1,939- square meter lot of Revelen N.
Srivastava is covered by Tax Declaration No. 09-0742 (Exh. B, p. 100, Records) which
gives its assessed value of the whole lot of P4,890.00. Such assessed value falls within the
exclusive original prerogative or jurisdiction of the first level court and, therefore, the
Regional Trial Court a quo has no jurisdiction to try and decided the same.13

The appellate court also held that respondent, as Revelens agent, did not have a
written authority to enter into such contract of sale; hence, the contract entered into
between petitioners and respondent is void. A void contract creates no rights or
obligations or any juridical relations. Therefore, the void contract cannot be the
subject of rescission.14
Aggrieved by the appellate courts Decision, petitioners elevated the case before
this Court.
Issues
Petitioners raise the following arguments:
1. The appellate court gravely erred in ruling that the contract entered into by
respondent, in representation of her daughter, and former defendant Eduardo
Rubi (deceased), is void; and
2. The appellate court erred in not ruling that the petitioners are entitled to
their counterclaims, particularly specific performance.15
Ruling of the Court
We deny the petition.
Petitioners submit that the sale of land by an agent who has no written authority
is not void but merely voidable given the spirit and intent of the law. Being only
voidable, the contract may be ratified, expressly or impliedly. Petitioners argue that
since the contract to sell was sufficiently established through respondents
admission during the pre-trial conference, the appellate court should have ruled on
the matter of the counterclaim for specific performance.16
Respondent argues that the appellate court cannot lawfully rule on petitioners
counterclaim because there is nothing in the records to sustain petitioners claim
that they have fully paid the price of the lot.17 Respondent points out that
petitioners admitted the lack of written authority to sell. Respondent also alleges
that there was clearly no meeting of the minds between the parties on the
purported contract of sale.18
Sale of Land through an Agent
Articles 1874 and 1878 of the Civil Code 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;
x x x

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 respondents 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.19 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.20
A special power of attorney is also necessary to enter into any contract by which
the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired for a valuable
consideration. Without an authority in writing, respondent cannot validly sell the
lot to petitioners. Hence, any sale in favor of the petitioners is void.
Our ruling in Dizon v. Court of Appeals21 is instructive:
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.

Further, Article 1318 of the Civil Code enumerates the requisites for a valid
contract, namely:
1. consent of the contracting parties;
2. object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;

3. cause of the obligation which is established.

Respondent did not have the written authority to enter into a contract to sell the
lot. As the consent of Revelen, the real owner of the lot, was not obtained in writing
as required by law, no contract was perfected. Consequently, petitioners failed to
validly acquire the lot.
General Power of Attorney
On 25 March 1994, Revelen executed a General Power of Attorney constituting
respondent as her attorney-in-fact and authorizing her to enter into any and all
contracts and agreements on Revelens behalf. The General Power of Attorney was
notarized by Larry A. Reid, Notary Public in California, U.S.A.
Unfortunately, the General Power of Attorney presented as Exhibit C22 in the
RTC cannot also be the basis of respondents written authority to sell the lot.
Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 25. Proof of public or official record.An official record or an entry therein, when
admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer
has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of embassy or legation consul general, consul, vice
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed
in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office.

In Teoco v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,23quoting Lopez v. Court of

Appeals,24 we explained:
From the foregoing provision, when the special power of attorney is executed and
acknowledged before a notary public or other competent official in a foreign country, it
cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is certified as such in accordance with the
foregoing provision of the rules by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept of said public
document and authenticated by the seal of his office. A city judge-notary who notarized the
document, as in this case, cannot issue such certification.25

Since the General Power of Attorney was executed and acknowledged in the
United States of America, it cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is certified as
such in accordance with the Rules of Court by an officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the United States of America. Hence, this document has no
probative value.

Specific Performance
Petitioners are not entitled to claim for specific performance. It must be stressed
that when specific performance is sought of a contract made with an agent, the
agency must be established by clear, certain and specific proof.26To reiterate, there
is a clear absence of proof that Revelen authorized respondent to sell her lot.
Jurisdiction of the RTC
Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129,27 as amended by Republic Act No.
7691 provides:
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases.Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, possession of,
real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest
therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and
costs: x x x

In Geonzon Vda. de Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi,28 the Court explained:

Before the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 7691, the plenary action
of accion publiciana was to be brought before the regional trial court. With the
modifications introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994, the jurisdiction of the first level courts
has been expanded to include jurisdiction over other real actions where the assessed value
does not exceed P20,000, P50,000 where the action is filed in Metro Manila. The first level
courts thus have exclusive original jurisdiction over accion publiciana and accion
reivindicatoria where the assessed value of the real property does not exceed the
aforestated amounts. Accordingly, the jurisdictional element is the assessed value of the
property.
Assessed value is understood to be the worth or value of property established by taxing
authorities on the basis of which the tax rate is applied. Commonly, however, it does not
represent the true or market value of the property.

The appellate court correctly ruled that even if the complaint filed with the RTC
involves a question of ownership, the MTC still has jurisdiction because the
assessed value of the whole lot as stated in Tax Declaration No. 09-0742 is
P4,890.29 The MTC cannot be deprived of jurisdiction over an ejectment case based
merely on the assertion of ownership over the litigated property, and the underlying
reason for this rule is to prevent any party from trifling with the summary nature of
an ejectment suit.30

The general rule is that dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction may be raised
at any stage of the proceedings since jurisdiction is conferred by law. The lack of
jurisdiction affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to
render judgment on the action; otherwise, the inevitable consequence would make
the courts decision a lawless thing.31 Since the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
complaint filed, all the proceedings as well as the Decision of 17 June 2002 are void.
The complaint should perforce be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision and Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 78215.
SO ORDERED.
Brion, Del Castillo, Abad and Perez, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.Under the Civil Code, every partner is an agent of the partnership for
the purpose of its business, each one may separately execute all acts of
administration, unless a specification of their respective duties has been agreed
upon, or else it is stipulated that any one of them shall not act without the consent
of all the others. (Mendoza vs. Paule, 579 SCRA 341 [2009])
A special power of attorney is necessary for an agent to enter into a contract by
which the ownership of an immovable property is transmitted or acquired, either
gratuitously or for a valuable consideration. (Pahud vs. Court of Appeals, 597 SCRA
13 [2009])
Absence of a written authority to sell a piece of land is,ipso jure, void, precisely to
protect the interest of an unsuspecting owner from being prejudiced by the
unwarranted act of another. (Pahud vs. Court of Appeals,id.)
o0o