G.R. No. 108921; April 12, 2000
JOSEFINA VILLANUEVA-MIJARES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PROCERFINA VILLANUEVA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The dispute involves a parcel of land originally owned by Felipe Villanueva. Upon his death, it passed to his eight children, including Leon and Benito, as co-owners. In 1946, Leon purchased the shares of some co-heirs, including the share of Benito, who had predeceased the sale. The Deed of Sale for Benito’s share was signed by his widow, Maria Baltazar. Leon later partitioned the property among his own children (petitioners), who obtained separate titles. The heirs of Benito (private respondents) filed an action for partition, annulment, and reconveyance. They argued the 1946 sale was void as to Benito’s share because Maria Baltazar, as a mere usufructuary (widow) under the old Civil Code, had no authority to sell the capital of her deceased husband’s estate, which belonged to his compulsory heirs.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, upholding the petitioners’ titles and declaring the action barred by res judicata. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the sale of Benito’s share was unenforceable against his heirs and ordering the petitioners to reconvey a one-sixth portion of the property to them.

ISSUE

Whether the Deed of Sale executed in 1946 by Maria Baltazar, conveying the undivided share of her deceased husband Benito, is valid and binding upon Benito’s compulsory heirs.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the nature of the widow’s rights under the Civil Code of 1889, which was applicable at the time of the 1946 sale. Upon Benito’s death, his estate vested directly in his compulsory heirs. Maria Baltazar, as the surviving spouse, was entitled only to a usufruct over a portion of the estate; she did not acquire ownership of the capital or property itself. Consequently, she had no legal authority to alienate the hereditary share belonging to her children. A contract executed by a person without the requisite authority to bind the principal is unenforceable.
The Court emphasized that such an unenforceable contract suffers from a permanent defect that cannot be cured by mere lapse of time. It remains unenforceable against the parties in whose name it was executed without authority unless they subsequently ratify it. There was no showing of any ratification by Benito’s heirs. Therefore, the sale was unenforceable as to Benito’s one-sixth share. The subsequent titles derived from this void source could not prejudice the rightful heirs. The petitioners, as buyers from Leon who derived rights from the invalid sale, were ordered to reconvey the corresponding portion to Benito’s legitimate heirs.