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.
No comments:
Post a Comment