Silva v. Lo

 

Silva v. Lo

G.R. No. 206667

June 23, 2021

 

FACTS:

Carlos Sandico, Jr., husband of Concepcion, and father of the plaintiff (Enrica) and other defendants, died intestate on May 20, 1975. At the time of his death, Carlos Sandico, Jr. left conjugal properties, half of which constituted his intestate estate. After his death, the parties executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate on November 18, 1976, distributing the intestate estate pro indiviso among the heirs. Concepcion, the defendant, took over the administration of the intestate estate jointly with Carlos Sandico III, contested by the plaintiff. The fruits or proceeds from the intestate estate were not distributed among the co-heirs according to the agreed-upon proportions in the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate due to an alleged usufruct granted by the plaintiff and other defendants in favor of their mother, Concepcion. The validity of this usufruct is contested by the plaintiff. However, in 2009, As per Conchita, the 2006 Kasunduan lacked her signature since she had already revoked the agency relationship with her mother, Concepcion. In addition, the signatories thereto, specifically the tenants, are not real parties in interest to the partition of the subject property forming part of the decedent's estate. In all, absent the signatures of all the heirs, the 2006 Kasundaan cannot be the basis for the issuance of new titles covering the subject property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the repudiation of Conchita of the agency relationship affected the validity of the 2006 Kasunduan partitioning the subject property due to the fact that it was not signed by all the heirs of the decedent.

HELD:

No. Apparent authority is based on the principle of estoppel. Article 143 of the Civil Code provides Art. 1431 provides that “through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.” Further, Article 1869 provides that “agency may be express, or implied from the acts of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority. Agency may be oral, unless the law requires a specific form.” In this case, Conchita failed to give her mother, Concepcion, the notice of revocation and belatedly repudiated her assent to the 2006 Kasunduan which was signed by her mother on her behalf despite her full and complete knowledge that Civil Case No. Q-89-3137 was ongoing and that the partition of her father’s estate properties was underway. Conchita cannot feign ignorance of the action for partition and what it sought, and the consequence of failing to inform her mother that she had revoked the SPA which she had previously given her. Conchita impliedly ratified her mother’s assent to the partition on her behalf by failing to assail the RTC’s April 13, 2007 Order and the conduct of the raffle for distribution of the property even after she had obtained a copy of the Order and the Minutes of the Raffle. Hence, the 2006 Kasunduan which partitioned the subject property is valid despite the absence of Conchita’s signature.