Petitioners allege further that even if Renato Gabriel was not (yet) the owner of
the subject portion of land when he sold the same to petitioners, after the death
of his parents Daluyong and Fe Gabriel, he, as heir, inherited and succeeded to the
ownership of said portion of land by operation of law thereby rendering valid and
effective the sale he executed in favor of petitioners. Petitioners also maintain
that on the basis of the facts proven and admitted during the trial, Daluyong
Gabriel appears to have not only authorized his son Renato Gabriel to sell the
subject portion of land but also ratified the transaction by his contemporaneous
conduct and actuations shown during his lifetime.
In their respective memorandum submitted by petitioners and private respondents,
substantially the same arguments/contentions were raised. Petitioners maintain that
the sale is valid or validated pursuant to Articles 1433 and 1434 of the Civil Code
and identified the legal issues involved as follows:
1. Whether or not the sale by respondent Renato Gabriel of the land registered in
the name of his deceased father Daluyong Gabriel, during the lifetime of the
latter, in favor of the herein petitioners, by operation of law, automatically
vests title on the latter under the principle of estoppel as provided for in Arts.
1433 and 1434 of the New Civil Code;
2. Whether or not the sale by Renato Gabriel of the land registered in the name of
his deceased father during the lifetime of the latter, to the herein petitioners is
null and void. 12
On the other hand, private respondents contend that the petition has no legal or
factual basis. It is argued that petitioners changed their theory of the case in
that while in the regional trial court, petitioners claim that the subject property
was sold to them by the late Daluyong Gabriel through his son Renato Gabriel, in
the instant petition, they claim that it was Renato Gabriel who sold the property
to them and that although at that time, Renato was not yet the owner of the
property, he is nonetheless obligated to honor the sale and to convey the property
to the petitioners because after the death of Daluyong Gabriel, Renato became the
owner of the subject property by way of hereditary succession. According to private
respondents, litigants are barred from changing their theory, more especially so in
the appeal, and that the only issue to be resolved in the instant petition is
whether or not Renato Gabriel can be compelled to convey the subject property to
petitioners. Private respondents maintain that Renato Gabriel cannot be compelled
to convey subject property (to petitioners) because the land never passed on to
Renato either before or after the death of Daluyong Gabriel and that the whole
property is now owned by Ma. Rita G. Bartolome per Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-68674 entered in the Registry of Deeds of Davao del Norte on January 10,
1991. 13 In short, Renato Gabriel cannot convey that which does not belong to him.
14
Essentially, the issue here is whether or not the verbal agreement which
petitioners entered into with private respondent Renato Gabriel in 1987 involving
the sale of the three hundred (300) square meter portion of land registered in the
name of Renato's late father Daluyong Gabriel is a valid and enforceable contract
of sale of real property.
By law 15 a 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. It is a
consensual contract which is perfected by mere consent. 16 Once perfected, the
contract is generally binding in whatever form (i.e. written or oral) it may have
been entered into 17 provided the three (3) essential requisites for its validity
prescribed under Article 1318 supra, are present. Foremost of these requisites is
the consent and the capacity to give consent of the parties to the contract. The
legal capacity of the parties is an essential element for the existence of the
contract because it is an indispensable condition for the existence of consent. 18
There is no effective consent in law without the capacity to give such consent. In
other words, legal consent presupposes capacity. 19 Thus, there is said to be no
consent, and consequently, no contract when the agreement is entered into by one in
behalf of another who has never given him authorization therefor 20 unless he has
by law a right to represent the latter. 21 It has also been held that if the vendor
is not the owner of the property at the time of the sale, the sale is null and
void, 22 because a person can sell only what he owns or is authorized to sell. 23
One exception is when a contract entered into in behalf of another who has not
authorized it, subsequently confirmed or ratified the same in which case, the
transaction becomes valid and binding against him and he is estopped to question
its legality. 24
The trial court held that the oral contract of sale was valid and enforceable
stating that while it is true that at the time of the sale, Renato Gabriel was not
the owner and that it was Daluyong Gabriel who was the registered owner of the
subject property, Daluyong Gabriel knew about the transaction and tacitly
authorized his son Renato Gabriel (whom he earlier designated as administrator of
his 5,010 square meter registered property) to enter into it. The receipt by Renato
Gabriel of the P90,000.00 paid by petitioner spouses as purchase price of subject
portion of land 25 and also of the amount of P14,000.00 paid by petitioners as
advance rental fee for the lease of one hundred seventy six (176) square meters
thereof, in accordance with the then still existing Contract of Lease (Exh. 10)
entered into by Renato Gabriel as Lessor and Lydia delos Reyes as lessee on
September 26, 1985 which was to expire only on June 15, 1991 was also known not
only to Daluyong Gabriel but also to his late wife Fe Salazar Gabriel and his two
other children, Maria Luisa Gabriel Esteban and Maria Rita Gabriel Bartolome. And
even assuming that Daluyong Gabriel did not expressly authorize Renato Gabriel to
enter into such contract of sale with petitioners in 1988, he (Daluyong Gabriel)
confirmed/ratified the same by his contemporaneous conduct and actuations shown
during his lifetime. More importantly, the trial court noted that Daluyong never
presented Renato during the entire proceedings, despite evidence 26 which tends to
show that Renato Gabriel was not missing nor were his whereabouts unknown as
Daluyong wanted to impress the
