GR 155043; (September, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155043 ; September 30, 2004
ARTURO R. ABALOS, petitioner, vs. DR. GALICANO S. MACATANGAY, JR., respondent.
FACTS
Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos owned a conjugal property. Arturo, armed with a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly from Esther, executed a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA) with respondent Dr. Galicano Macatangay, Jr., agreeing to sell the property and receiving earnest money. Esther later executed a separate SPA in favor of her sister, Bernadette Ramos, who then executed a Contract to Sell with Macatangay covering Esther’s conjugal share. Respondent made demands for possession to effect full payment, but the spouses failed to comply, prompting a complaint for specific performance.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, finding the first SPA in favor of Arturo to be falsified and void, and noting issues with the earnest money check. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the void SPA did not affect the subsequent valid Contract to Sell executed by Esther’s attorney-in-fact (her sister) covering her share, and that the RMOA executed by Arturo remained valid for his conjugal share. It ordered the spouses to execute a deed of sale.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and ordering specific performance.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is clear: the validity of the sale of the conjugal property is assessed based on the agreements executed by the spouses or their duly authorized agents. The falsified SPA executed by Arturo was correctly deemed void. However, this did not invalidate the entire transaction. Esther subsequently ratified the sale and authorized her sister through a valid SPA to execute a Contract to Sell her conjugal share to the respondent. This separate contract was binding on her. For his part, Arturo, as a co-owner, could validly bind his own share through the RMOA. The respondent was a buyer in good faith who had partially performed by giving earnest money and demonstrating readiness to pay the full price. The failure of the spouses to deliver possession, a condition for full payment, was a breach. Specific performance was the proper remedy to compel the completion of the sale for both conjugal shares, as the respondent had a clear right arising from the binding agreements. The Court also found no denial of due process, as the petitioner’s failure to participate in the appeal was due to his and his counsel’s own neglect.