7/27/2019 Alcantara v Nido

1/1

SPOUSES JOSELINA ALCANTARA AND ANTONIO ALCANTARA, and SPOUSES JOSEFINO RUBI AND ANNIE

DISTOR- RUBI, petitioners, vs. BRIGIDA L. NIDO, as attorney-in-fact of REVELEN N.

SRIVASTAVA, respondent.

G.R. No. 165133. April 19, 2010

Facts: Revelen N. Srivastava is the owner of an unregistered land in Cardona, Rizal. Sometime

in March 1984, respondent accepted the offer of petitioners to purchase a 200-square meter portion of

Revelen's lot. Petitioners paid P3,000 as downpayment and the balance was payable on instalment.

Petitioners constructed their houses in 1985. In 1986, with respondent's consent, petitioners occupied

an additional 150 square meters of the lot. By 1987, petitioners had already paid P17,500 before

petitioners defaulted on their instalment payments. On 11 May 1994, Brigida L. Nido, acting as

administrator and attorney-in-fact of Revelen, filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages

and prayer for preliminary injunction against petitioners.

Issue: Whether or not the contract entered into is valid.

Held: No, the contract entered into is null and void.

The Supreme Court ruled that according to Article 1318 of the Civil Code, the requisites

for a valid contract are: 1.) consent of the contracting parties; 2.) object certain which is the subject

matter of the contract; 3.) cause of the obligation which is established.

In the case at bar, the respondent did not have the written authority to enter into a

contract to sell the lot. As the consent of Revelen, the real owner of the lot, was not obtained n writing

as required by law, no contract was perfected. Hence, the petitioners failed to validly acquire the lot.