Alfiler v. Spouses Cayabyab

c. Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent (Arts. 1874; 1878-1880) — Sale of land through an agent (Art. 1874)

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. UnchuanPrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: Dominion Insurance Corp. v. Court of AppealsNext case→

Case DigestWeek 2 - Formalities of Agency

Alfiler v. Spouses Cayabyab

G.R. No. 217111 · March 13, 2023 · Supreme Court

c. Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent (Arts. 1874; 1878-1880) — Sale of land through an agent (Art. 1874)

Petitioner: Lilah Gail Corpuz AlfilerRespondent: Spouses John Cayabyab and Geraldine Cayabyab, represented by attorney-in-fact Jose Vasallo

Gist

An ejectment suit rested on a deed of absolute sale signed for a seller who was already dead, by someone with no valid special power of attorney. The Court held the deed void — it could confer no ownership and no right of possession — and dismissed the ejectment case.

Core Doctrine

Authority to sell land through an agent must be in writing and specific (Arts. 1874 and 1878); a deed executed without it is void. Because the agency is extinguished by the principal's death, a deed executed after that death is void on a second and independent ground, and a void deed cannot support a claim of better right of possession in an ejectment case.

Facts

The dispute concerned a 266.9-square-metre parcel of land at 186 Pajo Street, Barangay Quirino 2-C, Quezon City. (TCT No. RT-115646 (324155), registered in the name of Quintin Santiago, Jr., married to Violeta E. Santiago — he is the registered owner-seller referred to below.)
Respondents Spouses John and Geraldine Cayabyab, represented by their attorney-in-fact Jose Vasallo, filed an ejectment suit against petitioner Lilah Gail Corpuz Alfiler, claiming ownership and the right to possess the property on the strength of a Deed of Absolute Sale. (Filed 18 March 2010 as Civil Case No. 40058 before the MeTC of Quezon City, Branch 43, against Alfiler, her sister and several other occupants. Alfiler's side had been on the land since a 1985 amicable settlement in which Quintin agreed to sell it to her mother, Linglingay Corpuz, and others for ₱146,000.00, against which they had paid ₱72,425.00.)
Alfiler resisted, assailing the deed on two grounds: it had been executed after the death of the registered owner-seller, and the person who signed it for the seller held no valid special power of attorney. (Quintin died on 12 March 1997; the deed was executed on 20 August 1997 — five months later — by Norman Santiago signing as his attorney-in-fact. The special power of attorney was never submitted in evidence at all.)
Metropolitan Trial Court — for the Cayabyabs. The MeTC ruled for the Cayabyabs and ordered Alfiler to vacate. (3 January 2011, reasoning only that the defendants' claim "has not been established" while the Cayabyabs had proved ownership by preponderance of evidence.)
Regional Trial Court — affirmed. The RTC of Quezon City, Branch 97 affirmed in toto on 9 January 2013 and directed execution.
Court of Appeals — petition dismissed on procedure. The Court of Appeals dismissed Alfiler's Rule 65 petition on 13 December 2013 as the wrong mode of review, the proper remedy being a petition for review under Rule 42.
Before the Supreme Court. She elevated the case, and the Supreme Court took cognizance notwithstanding the procedural posture, the assailed rulings being patently erroneous.

Issue

Whether a Deed of Absolute Sale executed after the seller's death and without a valid special power of attorney can establish the respondents' better right of possession in an ejectment case.

Ruling

No. The Supreme Court held the Deed of Absolute Sale void, reversed the lower courts, and dismissed the ejectment complaint.

Ratio

1. Written and Specific Authority Is Required

The Court restated Article 1874: when the sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void.
Article 1878 (5) adds that a special power of attorney is necessary to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired for valuable consideration.
The authority of an agent to execute a contract for the sale of real estate must therefore be conferred in writing and must give him specific authority — a general instrument will not serve.
No such authority existed here.

2. Death of the Principal Independently Extinguished Any Authority

Even assuming an authority had once been given, it did not survive.
Agency is extinguished by the death of the principal (Art. 1919 [3]), and the extinguishment operates by force of law.
Whatever power the signatory may have held lapsed when the registered owner died, so the deed he executed afterwards was the act of a person representing no one.

3. A Void Deed Transmits Nothing

A void contract produces no legal effect and is not susceptible of ratification.
The Deed of Absolute Sale therefore conveyed neither ownership nor any right of possession to the respondents.

4. Consequence in Ejectment

In an ejectment case the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a better right of possession.
The Cayabyabs' claim rested entirely on the void deed.
With that foundation removed, they had nothing to support their asserted right, and the complaint had to be dismissed.
The Court took care to note that a ruling on ownership in an ejectment suit is provisional and made only to resolve the issue of possession.

Doctrine

Two requirements, one consequence. Authority to sell land through an agent must be (a) in writing and (b) specific. Non-compliance makes the sale void, not merely unenforceable.
Death ends the agency. A deed executed by an "agent" after the principal's death is void; the authority has already been extinguished by operation of law.
Ejectment. A plaintiff whose claim of possession rests on a void instrument fails to discharge his burden, and his complaint must be dismissed. Any determination of ownership in such a case is provisional only.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Full-length digest in the format required by the course digest prompt.

Classification: DIRECT · Ponente: Gesmundo, C.J. (First Division) · G.R. No. 217111, 13 March 2023

TOPIC/SUBTOPIC FOCUS: Week 2 — Formalities of Agency: (c) Formal requirements on grant of powers to agent — Sale of land through an agent (Article 1874), read with Article 1878(5).

TOPIC DOCTRINE CAPSULE. Article 1874 renders void a sale of land made through an agent whose authority is not in writing, and Article 1878(5) requires that the authority be a special power. Two evidentiary corollaries follow and are the burden of this case: the writing must be offered in evidence, and a mere recital in the deed of sale that an SPA exists is not a substitute — its non-production "only gives rise to the presumption that no such written authority exists." Separately, under Article 1919(3) an agency is extinguished by the death of the principal, so that acts of the agent thereafter are void ab initio save in the two cases of Article 1930 (agency coupled with an interest) and Article 1931 (agent without knowledge of the death, third person in good faith). The decision is to be checked against this capsule and followed where it differs.

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

This case is DIRECT as to the assigned Topic/Subtopic: the Court reproduced Article 1874 and Article 1878(5), quoted the Dizon v. Court of Appeals content standard, and held the deed void for want of a written special power that was never produced — expressly ruling that "it is not enough that the existence of an SPA be merely referred to in a deed of sale. It must be offered in evidence." The controversy arose over a 266.9-square-metre parcel at 186 Pajo Street, Barangay Quirino 2-C, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. RT-115646 (324155) in the name of Quintin Santiago, Jr.; respondent spouses Cayabyab based an ejectment suit on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 August 1997 purportedly executed by Quintin through an attorney-in-fact, Norman Santiago — five months after Quintin had died on 12 March 1997 — while petitioner's family claimed under a 1985 barangay Amicable Settlement to buy the land for ₱146,000.00, of which ₱72,425.00 had been paid. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Resolutions, and DISMISSED the ejectment complaint. The single central doctrine dominant to the Topic/Subtopic is that "not only was the seller, Quintin, already deceased at the time of the sale on August 20, 1997, respondents also could not produce the mandatory requirement of a written SPA that would have authorized Norman to sell the land of Quintin," so that "absent a written SPA and for want of authority, ... the DOAS is void ab initio." The rulings on the wrong mode of appeal, on the constitutional requirement that decisions state the facts and the law, and on burden of proof in ejectment are treated below as secondary.

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts and Procedural Events

The subject property is a parcel of land located at 186 Pajo Street, Barangay Quirino 2-C, Quezon City, with an area of 266.9 square metres, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-115646 (324155) registered with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of Quintin Santiago, Jr., married to Violeta E. Santiago.
Sometime in March 1985, Quintin lodged before the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Quirino 2-C a complaint for ejectment and squatting against petitioner's mother, Linglingay Corpuz, and several others.
On 1 May 1985, the parties executed an Amicable Settlement providing that the property "will be sold by the owner to the respondents in the amount of P550.00 per square meter totalling to P146,000.00," payable in cash upon delivery of the certificate of title and the final deed of sale, with transfer expenses for the buyers' account and capital gains tax for the seller's, a monthly bank deposit of about ₱36,500.00 representing one-fourth of the total, and purchase to be made "starting May up to August 23, 1985."
Pursuant to that agreement, Linglingay and her co-parties allegedly made five partial payments to Quintin totalling ₱72,425.00, the last in June 1986.
On 12 March 1997, Quintin died.
On 20 August 1997 — five months after Quintin's death — a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property was executed in favour of respondent spouses John and Geraldine Cayabyab, purportedly by Quintin through his attorney-in-fact Norman Santiago acting under a Special Power of Attorney. That SPA was never submitted in evidence.
On 8 May 2009, respondents issued a final demand letter to petitioner and her co-occupants to vacate the premises; they refused.
On 18 March 2010, respondents, represented by their attorney-in-fact Jose Vasallo, filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 43 a Complaint for Ejectment (Civil Case No. 40058) against petitioner, her sister Meda Delza Armamento, Spouses Alfredo and Lolita Garduce, Romeo Magdaluyo, Gina Villanueva, A.B. Morato, and all persons claiming rights under them, alleging ownership under the 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale and illegal occupation without rent since 1997.
In their Answer and Position Paper, petitioner and Meda denied respondents' claim and argued: that the Deed is null and void because Quintin never executed an SPA authorizing Norman to sell; that even assuming an SPA existed, the agency "was extinguished by the latter's death on March 12, 1997, or five months prior to the execution of the DOAS"; that they have a better right by virtue of the Amicable Settlement embodying a contract of sale; that the sale was consummated by payments of ₱72,425.00; and that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction, the complaint having been filed more than one year from the 1997 dispossession, so that the proper action was accion publiciana.
At the preliminary conference the parties failed to stipulate on any factual matter, but the issues defined and delimited included: "3. Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale attached to the complaint is valid" and "6. Whether [or] not the alleged Attorney-in-Fact in the Deed of Absolute Sale has authority to sell the parcel of land."
On 3 January 2011, the MeTC ruled for respondents, ordering the defendants to vacate and to pay ₱1,000.00 per month per defendant from 8 May 2009 until the premises are vacated, ₱20,000.00 attorney's fees, and costs. It reasoned only that the defendants' claim "has not been established" and that respondents "[were] able to prove [their] ownership ... by preponderance of evidence," citing Article 428.
Petitioner and Meda appealed to the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 97 under Rule 40. On 9 January 2013, the RTC affirmed in toto and directed issuance of a writ of execution under Section 21, Rule 70, holding that the defendants proved only occupation as a consequence of the Amicable Settlement's compromise rather than a claim of ownership.
On 17 October 2013, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration.
On 22 November 2013 — thirty-one days from notice of the order denying reconsideration — only petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (CA-G.R. SP No. 132787).
On 13 December 2013, the CA dismissed the petition as the wrong mode of judicial review, the proper remedy being a petition for review under Rule 42; and on 17 February 2015 it denied reconsideration, rejecting the invocation of substantial justice and observing that petitioner posited errors of judgment rather than of jurisdiction.
On 13 March 2023, the Supreme Court rendered its Decision on the Rule 45 petition, granting it and dismissing the ejectment complaint.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Lilah Gail Corpuz Alfiler)

On the issue tied to the Topic/Subtopic, petitioner argued that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 August 1997, on which respondents base their right, "is null and void and could not confer any right or title in their favor as it was executed after the death of Quintin"; that "no SPA was presented in favor of Norman, even when such SPA was claimed to have been attached to the DOAS"; and that "[e]ven assuming arguendo that there existed an SPA, the death of Quintin which occurred prior to the execution of the DOAS, extinguished the SPA to Norman." In her Reply she added "that the lower courts erred in not considering Article 1317 and 1874 of the New Civil Code in resolving the matters of the case."

Procedurally, she argued that the CA deviated from settled jurisprudence in dismissing her petition for certiorari as the wrong mode of appeal notwithstanding persuasive and compelling reasons for liberal construction, and in not giving due course notwithstanding matters requiring resolution on the merits; and she maintained that the MeTC had no jurisdiction, the suit having been filed more than a year from dispossession.

B. Respondents (Spouses John and Geraldine Cayabyab)

Respondents alleged that they are the owners of the subject property, "having acquired the same under a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 20, 1997, which was purportedly executed by Quintin through his attorney-in-fact, Norman Santiago"; that the occupants "have been in possession of the subject property, illegally building their houses without paying rent since 1997"; and that they refused to vacate despite the final demand letter of 8 May 2009. In their Comment before the Supreme Court, respondents "state that there was nothing to add or detract from anything that was decided by the CA, further reminding that the MeTC and RTC found no merit in petitioner's cause," and argued "that petitioner's continued occupation of the subject property without paying rent is enough ground to end their possession."

C. Common Ground / Stipulations

The decision expressly notes that "[o]n preliminary conference, the parties failed to stipulate on any factual matter," but that the validity of the Deed and the authority of the attorney-in-fact were among the issues defined and delimited. The date of Quintin's death (12 March 1997) and the date of the Deed (20 August 1997) are treated as established on the record, as is the fact that the SPA "was never submitted in evidence."

IV. Issues

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered)

Tracking the Court's own demarcated sub-argument on the "severe legal infirmities that plague such claim," the controlling Topic/Subtopic issue is: whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 20 August 1997, executed by Norman Santiago as attorney-in-fact of the registered owner, conveyed any right of ownership — and hence any de facto right of possession — to respondents, where the Special Power of Attorney said to authorize Norman was never offered in evidence but merely referred to in the deed, and where the principal had died five months before the deed was executed.

B. Secondary Issues

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as the wrong mode of appeal, and whether the case falls within the recognized exceptions permitting certiorari where appeal was available.
Whether the MeTC and RTC decisions complied with Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution and the requirement that a decision state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
Who bears the burden of proof in an ejectment suit, and whether respondents discharged it.
Whether the MeTC had jurisdiction, the complaint having been filed more than one year after the alleged dispossession.

C. Ancillary / Incidental Issues

Whether the courts in an ejectment case may pass upon ownership. The Court resolved this affirmatively but provisionally: "Where the issue of ownership is raised by any of the parties, the courts may pass upon the same in order to determine who has the right to possess the property. However, the adjudication is merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property."

V. Ruling / Disposition (Categorical, Issue-Mapped)

MAIN ISSUE — NO; the Deed is VOID AB INITIO and conveyed nothing. Verbatim: "Thus, absent a written SPA and for want of authority, as the seller was already deceased at the time of sale, the DOAS is void ab initio. Respondents do not have any interest, rights, or claim over the subject property. Accordingly, they have not established their de facto right of possession because there is no right of ownership to speak of, even in the provisional sense."

Secondary Issue 1 — the CA was technically correct but the rule is RELAXED. "Evidently, petitioner availed of the wrong remedy before the CA... [Nevertheless,] [t]his Court finds that petitioner's case falls under the second and fourth exceptions as patent errors on the assailed Decisions and Resolutions are extant."

Secondary Issue 2 — NO, they did not comply. "[T]he lower courts' decisions are infirm for being in contravention to the constitutional mandate of the courts in rendering a decision."

Secondary Issue 3 — the PLAINTIFF bears it, and respondents FAILED. "Due to the insufficiency of factual or legal basis to grant the complaint and the failure to establish their burden of proof, respondents' complaint should be dismissed."

Secondary Issue 4 — not separately resolved; the Court disposed of the case on the merits by dismissing the complaint for failure of proof, rendering the jurisdictional objection unnecessary to decide.

Dispositive portion, verbatim:

"WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated December 13, 2013 and February 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132787 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 43, in Civil Case No. 40058 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED."

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines (Topic-Focused)

A. Ratio Decidendi (Decisive Reasoning)

Step 1 — The two infirmities identified. "However, it is notoriously apparent that there are severe legal infirmities that plague such claim."
The Court then took them in order: the death of the principal, and the absence of a written special power.
Step 2 — Death of the principal terminates contractual capacity. "A cursory reading of the DOAS shows that it was executed on August 20, 1997 by respondents and Quintin, through an SPA with his attorney-in-fact, Norman. Glaringly, Quintin already died on March 12, 1997, or five months prior to the execution of the DOAS. It is settled that that the death of a person terminates contractual capacity. Thus, Quintin does not have any legal personality to transfer any property rights after his death."
Quoting Arakor Construction and Development Corporation v. Sta. Maria: "[i]f any one party to a supposed contract was already dead at the time of its execution, such contract is undoubtedly simulated and false, and, therefore, null and void by reason of its having been made after the death of the party who appears as one of the contracting parties therein."
Step 3 — The codal provisions, reproduced. "In addition, Norman's authority to sell the subject property of Quintin stems from an alleged SPA that was never submitted in evidence. Basic are the following Civil Code provisions:" — and the Court then set out Article 1874 in full, Article 1878(5), and Article 1919(3) ("Agency is extinguished: ... (3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent").
Step 4 — The rule synthesised. "From these provisions, it is clear that under Article 1878, a special power of attorney is necessary for an agent to enter into any contract for the sale of real property. Not only that, Art. 1874 explicitly states that such authority for the sale of land through an agent, should be in writing, otherwise the sale shall be void."
Step 5 — The content standard, quoted from Dizon v. Court of Appeals.
The Court reproduced the same passage adopted in [MCIAA v.
Unchuan](/agency-trust-partnership/week-02/mciaa-v-unchuan) — footnote 83 of this decision expressly notes that Dizon is "cited in Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Unchuan, 786 Phil. 23, 38 (2016)" — including its concluding sentences: "For the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate, a power of attorney must so express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language. When there is any reasonable doubt that the language so used conveys such power, no such construction shall be given the document."
Step 6 — Application: two defects, one conclusion. "Verily, not only was the seller, Quintin, already deceased at the time of the sale on August 20, 1997, respondents also could not produce the mandatory requirement of a written SPA that would have authorized Norman to sell the land of Quintin. These are significant defects in the sale that renders the claim of ownership, including de facto possession, of respondents highly doubtful."
Step 7 — Extinguishment by death and its two exceptions (Article 1919(3); Article 1930; Article 1931). "Settled is the rule that an agency is extinguished by the death of the principal. It is by reason of the very nature of the relationship between a principal and an agent that any act of an agent after the death of his principal is void ab initio, except as explicitly provided for in the New Civil Code: (1) Art. 1930 when the agency is coupled with an interest, and (2) Art. 1931 when the agent performed an act for the principal without knowledge of the principal's death and the third person who contracted with him acted in good faith. Neither of which are alleged or applicable in this case."
The Court sourced the exceptions to Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation, 171 Phil. 222, 229 (1978).
Step 8 — The evidentiary rule on the written authority. "Additionally, it is not enough that the existence of an SPA be merely referred to in a deed of sale. It must be offered in evidence. If no evidence is offered, it only gives rise to the presumption that no such written authority exists."
(Citing Spouses Alcantara v. Nido, 632 Phil. 343, 351 (2010).)
Step 9 — Conclusion and its consequence for the ejectment suit. "Thus, absent a written SPA and for want of authority, as the seller was already deceased at the time of sale, the DOAS is void ab initio."
(Footnote 89 anchors the want-of-consent point on Article 1318.
"Not having acquired any right over the property in question, no right of respondents' could have been violated. Thus, respondents' evidence failed to prove their cause of action alleged in their pleadings."
Step 10 — The procedural and constitutional reasoning that permitted the Court to reach the merits. The Court held that certiorari was the wrong remedy, appeal under Rule 42 having been available and lost through negligence, the two being "mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive"
But it applied the recognized exceptions — "(b) when the broader interests of justice so requires" and "(d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority" — because the MeTC and RTC decisions lacked "the supporting facts, discussion on probative value of the evidence, and the legal basis," in contravention of Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution, and because "petitioner stands to lose a family home."

B. Doctrines / Rules / Principles Laid Down

A written special power is mandatory for the sale of land through an agent — the doctrinal takeaway for this Topic/Subtopic. Verbatim:

"From these provisions, it is clear that under Article 1878, a special power of attorney is necessary for an agent to enter into any contract for the sale of real property. Not only that, Art. 1874 explicitly states that such authority for the sale of land through an agent, should be in writing, otherwise the sale shall be void."
The SPA must be offered in evidence; reference to it in the deed will not do. Verbatim:

"Additionally, it is not enough that the existence of an SPA be merely referred to in a deed of sale. It must be offered in evidence. If no evidence is offered, it only gives rise to the presumption that no such written authority exists."
The content standard for the written authority (Dizon v. Court of Appeals, as adopted). "The express mandate required by law to enable an appointee of an agency (couched) in general terms to sell must be one that expressly mentions a sale or that includes a sale as a necessary ingredient of the act mentioned. For the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate, a power of attorney must so express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language."
Death of the principal extinguishes the agency (Article 1919(3)); acts thereafter are void ab initio, subject to two exceptions. Verbatim:

"It is by reason of the very nature of the relationship between a principal and an agent that any act of an agent after the death of his principal is void ab initio, except as explicitly provided for in the New Civil Code: (1) Art. 1930 when the agency is coupled with an interest, and (2) Art. 1931 when the agent performed an act for the principal without knowledge of the principal's death and the third person who contracted with him acted in good faith."
Death terminates contractual capacity; a contract executed after a party's death is simulated and void. "[I]f any one party to a supposed contract was already dead at the time of its execution, such contract is undoubtedly simulated and false, and, therefore, null and void" (Arakor Construction and Development Corporation v. Sta. Maria).
A void deed confers no de facto right of possession. "[T]hey have not established their de facto right of possession because there is no right of ownership to speak of, even in the provisional sense."
Burden of proof in ejectment lies on the plaintiff. "Actori incumbit onus probandi." "Ejectment can be maintained only by one having a present exclusive right to possession."
Provisional character of an ownership ruling in ejectment. "[T]he adjudication is merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property."
Constitutional requirement as to the form of decisions. Article VIII, Section 14: "No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based."

C. Distinctions / Limitations / Qualifications

Two independent grounds, and they should be recited separately. The Week 2(c) ground is the missing written SPA; the Week 6 ground (extinguishment of agency) is the principal's prior death. Either alone would have voided the deed. A recitation that merges them loses the Article 1874 point, which is the one assigned.
The evidentiary rule in Step 8 is the distinctive contribution of this case. Compare Sps. Bautista v. Sps. Jalandoni, where an SPA was likewise alleged and never produced. Alfiler states the consequence as a presumption: non-production "only gives rise to the presumption that no such written authority exists." That is the sentence to quote when a party says the SPA exists but is unavailable.
The Article 1930 and Article 1931 exceptions were held inapplicable because neither was alleged. The Court did not examine whether the agent knew of the death or whether the buyers were in good faith; it noted only that "[n]either of which are alleged or applicable in this case." The exceptions must therefore be pleaded and proved by the party invoking them — a point directly continuous with Rallos v. Felix Go Chan, which the Court cites.
The ownership ruling is provisional. The dismissal of the ejectment complaint does not settle title; petitioner's own claim under the 1985 Amicable Settlement was not adjudicated — "it is no longer necessary to discuss the evidence presented by petitioner."
The relaxation of procedure is exceptional and reasoned. The Court did not hold certiorari proper; it held the case to fall within two established exceptions, largely because the lower courts' decisions failed the constitutional standard and a family home was at stake. This should not be cited as authority for substituting certiorari for appeal.
Petitioner's jurisdictional objection was not passed upon. Whether the action should have been accion publiciana remains open on the face of the decision.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory)

The classification is DIRECT.
Alfiler is the most recent of the assigned Article 1874 cases and it is the one to cite for the proof requirement.
The other cases in the cluster establish that the authority must exist and be written ([AF Realty v.
Dieselman](/agency-trust-partnership/week-02/af-realty-v-dieselman-freight-services)), that it must be special and clearly worded ([MCIAA v.
Unchuan](/agency-trust-partnership/week-02/mciaa-v-unchuan)), and that a buyer who does not demand it forfeits the protection of good faith (Sps. Bautista v. Sps. Jalandoni).
Alfiler adds the litigation-stage rule: the party invoking the agency must offer the writing in evidence, and if he does not, the law presumes there is none — no matter that the deed of sale itself recites the SPA and even claims it as an attachment.
The case is also valuable for showing the downstream reach of Article 1874: because the deed was void, the buyers had no ownership even provisionally, and therefore could not maintain an ejectment suit at all — the formalities rule of Week 2 reached back and destroyed a possessory action decided in their favour by two courts.
Finally, the decision usefully pairs Article 1874 with Article 1919(3) and its two exceptions, giving the student the bridge from Week 2 (formalities) to Week 6 (extinguishment) in the Court's own words.

VII. Separate Opinions

None. The Decision was penned by Gesmundo, C.J., with Hernando, Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concurring. No separate concurring or dissenting opinion appears in the record.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Civil Code

Article 1874, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 1 (Nature, Form and Kinds of Agency)

When a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void. (n)

Why it is cited here

The first of two independent grounds of nullity, and the more familiar one: a sale of land through an agent requires authority in writing, "otherwise, the sale shall be void."

Worth noticing that the article does not ask whether anyone was deceived, whether the price was fair, or whether the principal would have approved. It asks one question about the form of the authority, and answers with nullity.

Civil Code

Article 1878, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 1 (Nature, Form and Kinds of Agency)

Special powers of attorney are necessary in the following cases:

(1) To make such payments as are not usually considered as acts of administration;

(2) To effect novations which put an end to obligations already in existence at the time the agency was constituted;

(3) To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to renounce the right to appeal from a judgment, to waive objections to the venue of an action or to abandon a prescription already acquired;

(4) To waive any obligation gratuitously;

(5) To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration;

(6) To make gifts, except customary ones for charity or those made to employees in the business managed by the agent;

(7) To loan or borrow money, unless the latter act be urgent and indispensable for the preservation of the things which are under administration;

(8) To lease any real property to another person for more than one year;

(9) To bind the principal to render some service without compensation;

(10) To bind the principal in a contract of partnership;

(11) To obligate the principal as a guarantor or surety;

(12) To create or convey real rights over immovable property;

(13) To accept or repudiate an inheritance;

(14) To ratify or recognize obligations contracted before the agency;

(15) Any other act of strict dominion. (n)

Why it is cited here

The companion requirement — paragraph (5) demands a special power to transmit ownership of an immovable — so the authority must be both written and specific to the sale.

The pairing is what makes this branch of the law strict in practice. A principal who signs a broad power of attorney has not thereby authorised the disposal of his land, and an agent holding one cannot sell.

Civil Code

Article 1919, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

Agency is extinguished:

(1) By its revocation;

(2) By the withdrawal of the agent;

(3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent;

(4) By the dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrusted or accepted the agency;

(5) By the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the agency;

(6) By the expiration of the period for which the agency was constituted. (1732a)

Why it is cited here

The second and independent ground, and the reason this case is worth more than a routine Article 1874 application.

Paragraph (3) extinguishes agency "[b]y the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent." The effect is automatic and needs no notice — so a deed executed after the principal's death is the act of someone representing nobody, and is void whatever the state of his paperwork.

Two independent grounds matter for how you answer a problem. Each would suffice alone, so curing one leaves the deed just as dead. Even written and special authority would not have saved a deed signed after death.

Civil Code

Article 1931, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

Anything done by the agent, without knowledge of the death of the principal or of any other cause which extinguishes the agency, is valid and shall be fully effective with respect to third persons who may have contracted with him in good faith. (1738)

Why it is cited here

The only escape from the death rule, and it is cumulative in its requirements: an act done by the agent "without knowledge of the death of the principal" is effective as to third persons "who may have contracted with him in good faith."

Both conditions must hold — the agent's ignorance and the third person's good faith. And note what the article rescues even then: it validates a particular transaction, it does not keep the agency alive. Article 1919 has already ended it.

Civil Code

Article 1930, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

The agency shall remain in full force and effect even after the death of the principal, if it has been constituted in the common interest of the latter and of the agent, or in the interest of a third person who has accepted the stipulation in his favor. (n)

Why it is cited here

The genuine survival exception, offered for contrast: agency subsists past death where constituted "in the common interest" of principal and agent, or of a third person who accepted the stipulation in his favour.

This is agency coupled with an interest — the agent has a stake of his own, so the reason for the authority outlives the principal. An ordinary authority to sell is not that, which is why a deed executed after death in the usual case fails.

Related notes: Article 1317 · Article 1318 · Article 1874 · Article 1878 · Article 1919 · Article 1930 · Article 1931 · Sale of Land Through an Agent · Special Power of Attorney · Void Contracts · Extinguishment of Agency · Rallos v. Felix Go Chan · MCIAA v. Unchuan · Sps. Bautista v. Sps. Jalandoni · AF Realty v. Dieselman

Source: Alfiler v. Spouses Cayabyab, G.R. No. 217111, 13 March 2023

Cited laws & provisions

Article 1874, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 1 (Nature, Form and Kinds of Agency)

When a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void. (n)

Why it is cited here

The first of two independent grounds of nullity, and the more familiar one: a sale of land through an agent requires authority in writing, "otherwise, the sale shall be void."

Full entry below ↓

Article 1878, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 1 (Nature, Form and Kinds of Agency)

Special powers of attorney are necessary in the following cases:

(1) To make such payments as are not usually considered as acts of administration;

(2) To effect novations which put an end to obligations already in existence at the time the agency was constituted;

(3) To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to renounce the right to appeal from a judgment, to waive objections to the venue of an action or to abandon a prescription already acquired;

(4) To waive any obligation gratuitously;

(5) To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration;

(6) To make gifts, except customary ones for charity or those made to employees in the business managed by the agent;

(7) To loan or borrow money, unless the latter act be urgent and indispensable for the preservation of the things which are under administration;

(8) To lease any real property to another person for more than one year;

(9) To bind the principal to render some service without compensation;

(10) To bind the principal in a contract of partnership;

(11) To obligate the principal as a guarantor or surety;

(12) To create or convey real rights over immovable property;

(13) To accept or repudiate an inheritance;

(14) To ratify or recognize obligations contracted before the agency;

(15) Any other act of strict dominion. (n)

Why it is cited here

The companion requirement — paragraph (5) demands a special power to transmit ownership of an immovable — so the authority must be both written and specific to the sale.

Full entry below ↓

Article 1919, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

Agency is extinguished:

(1) By its revocation;

(2) By the withdrawal of the agent;

(3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent;

(4) By the dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrusted or accepted the agency;

(5) By the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the agency;

(6) By the expiration of the period for which the agency was constituted. (1732a)

Why it is cited here

The second and independent ground, and the reason this case is worth more than a routine Article 1874 application.

Full entry below ↓

Article 1931, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

Why it is cited here

Full entry below ↓

Article 1930, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title X (Agency), Chapter 4 (Modes of Extinguishment of Agency)

Why it is cited here

Full entry below ↓

Facts

The dispute concerned a 266.9-square-metre parcel of land at 186 Pajo Street, Barangay Quirino 2-C, Quezon City. (TCT No. RT-115646 (324155), registered in the name of Quintin Santiago, Jr., married to Violeta E. Santiago — he is the registered owner-seller referred to below.)
Respondents Spouses John and Geraldine Cayabyab, represented by their attorney-in-fact Jose Vasallo, filed an ejectment suit against petitioner Lilah Gail Corpuz Alfiler, claiming ownership and the right to possess the property on the strength of a Deed of Absolute Sale. (Filed 18 March 2010 as Civil Case No. 40058 before the MeTC of Quezon City, Branch 43, against Alfiler, her sister and several other occupants. Alfiler's side had been on the land since a 1985 amicable settlement in which Quintin agreed to sell it to her mother, Linglingay Corpuz, and others for ₱146,000.00, against which they had paid ₱72,425.00.)
Alfiler resisted, assailing the deed on two grounds: it had been executed after the death of the registered owner-seller, and the person who signed it for the seller held no valid special power of attorney. (Quintin died on 12 March 1997; the deed was executed on 20 August 1997 — five months later — by Norman Santiago signing as his attorney-in-fact. The special power of attorney was never submitted in evidence at all.)
Metropolitan Trial Court — for the Cayabyabs. The MeTC ruled for the Cayabyabs and ordered Alfiler to vacate. (3 January 2011, reasoning only that the defendants' claim "has not been established" while the Cayabyabs had proved ownership by preponderance of evidence.)
Regional Trial Court — affirmed. The RTC of Quezon City, Branch 97 affirmed in toto on 9 January 2013 and directed execution.
Court of Appeals — petition dismissed on procedure. The Court of Appeals dismissed Alfiler's Rule 65 petition on 13 December 2013 as the wrong mode of review, the proper remedy being a petition for review under Rule 42.
Before the Supreme Court. She elevated the case, and the Supreme Court took cognizance notwithstanding the procedural posture, the assailed rulings being patently erroneous.

Issue

Whether a Deed of Absolute Sale executed after the seller's death and without a valid special power of attorney can establish the respondents' better right of possession in an ejectment case.

Ruling

No. The Supreme Court held the Deed of Absolute Sale void, reversed the lower courts, and dismissed the ejectment complaint.

Ratio

1. Written and Specific Authority Is Required

The Court restated Article 1874: when the sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void.
Article 1878 (5) adds that a special power of attorney is necessary to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired for valuable consideration.
The authority of an agent to execute a contract for the sale of real estate must therefore be conferred in writing and must give him specific authority — a general instrument will not serve.
No such authority existed here.

2. Death of the Principal Independently Extinguished Any Authority

Even assuming an authority had once been given, it did not survive.
Agency is extinguished by the death of the principal (Art. 1919 [3]), and the extinguishment operates by force of law.
Whatever power the signatory may have held lapsed when the registered owner died, so the deed he executed afterwards was the act of a person representing no one.

3. A Void Deed Transmits Nothing

A void contract produces no legal effect and is not susceptible of ratification.
The Deed of Absolute Sale therefore conveyed neither ownership nor any right of possession to the respondents.

4. Consequence in Ejectment

In an ejectment case the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a better right of possession.
The Cayabyabs' claim rested entirely on the void deed.
With that foundation removed, they had nothing to support their asserted right, and the complaint had to be dismissed.
The Court took care to note that a ruling on ownership in an ejectment suit is provisional and made only to resolve the issue of possession.

Doctrine

Two requirements, one consequence. Authority to sell land through an agent must be (a) in writing and (b) specific. Non-compliance makes the sale void, not merely unenforceable.
Death ends the agency. A deed executed by an "agent" after the principal's death is void; the authority has already been extinguished by operation of law.
Ejectment. A plaintiff whose claim of possession rests on a void instrument fails to discharge his burden, and his complaint must be dismissed. Any determination of ownership in such a case is provisional only.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Full-length digest in the format required by the course digest prompt.

Classification: DIRECT · Ponente: Gesmundo, C.J. (First Division) · G.R. No. 217111, 13 March 2023

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts and Procedural Events

The subject property is a parcel of land located at 186 Pajo Street, Barangay Quirino 2-C, Quezon City, with an area of 266.9 square metres, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-115646 (324155) registered with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of Quintin Santiago, Jr., married to Violeta E. Santiago.
Sometime in March 1985, Quintin lodged before the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Quirino 2-C a complaint for ejectment and squatting against petitioner's mother, Linglingay Corpuz, and several others.
On 1 May 1985, the parties executed an Amicable Settlement providing that the property "will be sold by the owner to the respondents in the amount of P550.00 per square meter totalling to P146,000.00," payable in cash upon delivery of the certificate of title and the final deed of sale, with transfer expenses for the buyers' account and capital gains tax for the seller's, a monthly bank deposit of about ₱36,500.00 representing one-fourth of the total, and purchase to be made "starting May up to August 23, 1985."
Pursuant to that agreement, Linglingay and her co-parties allegedly made five partial payments to Quintin totalling ₱72,425.00, the last in June 1986.
On 12 March 1997, Quintin died.
On 20 August 1997 — five months after Quintin's death — a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property was executed in favour of respondent spouses John and Geraldine Cayabyab, purportedly by Quintin through his attorney-in-fact Norman Santiago acting under a Special Power of Attorney. That SPA was never submitted in evidence.
On 8 May 2009, respondents issued a final demand letter to petitioner and her co-occupants to vacate the premises; they refused.
On 18 March 2010, respondents, represented by their attorney-in-fact Jose Vasallo, filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 43 a Complaint for Ejectment (Civil Case No. 40058) against petitioner, her sister Meda Delza Armamento, Spouses Alfredo and Lolita Garduce, Romeo Magdaluyo, Gina Villanueva, A.B. Morato, and all persons claiming rights under them, alleging ownership under the 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale and illegal occupation without rent since 1997.
In their Answer and Position Paper, petitioner and Meda denied respondents' claim and argued: that the Deed is null and void because Quintin never executed an SPA authorizing Norman to sell; that even assuming an SPA existed, the agency "was extinguished by the latter's death on March 12, 1997, or five months prior to the execution of the DOAS"; that they have a better right by virtue of the Amicable Settlement embodying a contract of sale; that the sale was consummated by payments of ₱72,425.00; and that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction, the complaint having been filed more than one year from the 1997 dispossession, so that the proper action was accion publiciana.
At the preliminary conference the parties failed to stipulate on any factual matter, but the issues defined and delimited included: "3. Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale attached to the complaint is valid" and "6. Whether [or] not the alleged Attorney-in-Fact in the Deed of Absolute Sale has authority to sell the parcel of land."
On 3 January 2011, the MeTC ruled for respondents, ordering the defendants to vacate and to pay ₱1,000.00 per month per defendant from 8 May 2009 until the premises are vacated, ₱20,000.00 attorney's fees, and costs. It reasoned only that the defendants' claim "has not been established" and that respondents "[were] able to prove [their] ownership ... by preponderance of evidence," citing Article 428.
Petitioner and Meda appealed to the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 97 under Rule 40. On 9 January 2013, the RTC affirmed in toto and directed issuance of a writ of execution under Section 21, Rule 70, holding that the defendants proved only occupation as a consequence of the Amicable Settlement's compromise rather than a claim of ownership.
On 17 October 2013, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration.
On 22 November 2013 — thirty-one days from notice of the order denying reconsideration — only petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (CA-G.R. SP No. 132787).
On 13 December 2013, the CA dismissed the petition as the wrong mode of judicial review, the proper remedy being a petition for review under Rule 42; and on 17 February 2015 it denied reconsideration, rejecting the invocation of substantial justice and observing that petitioner posited errors of judgment rather than of jurisdiction.
On 13 March 2023, the Supreme Court rendered its Decision on the Rule 45 petition, granting it and dismissing the ejectment complaint.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Lilah Gail Corpuz Alfiler)

B. Respondents (Spouses John and Geraldine Cayabyab)

C. Common Ground / Stipulations

IV. Issues

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered)

B. Secondary Issues

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as the wrong mode of appeal, and whether the case falls within the recognized exceptions permitting certiorari where appeal was available.
Whether the MeTC and RTC decisions complied with Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution and the requirement that a decision state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
Who bears the burden of proof in an ejectment suit, and whether respondents discharged it.
Whether the MeTC had jurisdiction, the complaint having been filed more than one year after the alleged dispossession.

C. Ancillary / Incidental Issues

V. Ruling / Disposition (Categorical, Issue-Mapped)

Secondary Issue 2 — NO, they did not comply. "[T]he lower courts' decisions are infirm for being in contravention to the constitutional mandate of the courts in rendering a decision."

Dispositive portion, verbatim:

"WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated December 13, 2013 and February 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132787 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 43, in Civil Case No. 40058 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED."

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines (Topic-Focused)

A. Ratio Decidendi (Decisive Reasoning)

Step 1 — The two infirmities identified. "However, it is notoriously apparent that there are severe legal infirmities that plague such claim."
The Court then took them in order: the death of the principal, and the absence of a written special power.
Step 2 — Death of the principal terminates contractual capacity. "A cursory reading of the DOAS shows that it was executed on August 20, 1997 by respondents and Quintin, through an SPA with his attorney-in-fact, Norman. Glaringly, Quintin already died on March 12, 1997, or five months prior to the execution of the DOAS. It is settled that that the death of a person terminates contractual capacity. Thus, Quintin does not have any legal personality to transfer any property rights after his death."
Quoting Arakor Construction and Development Corporation v. Sta. Maria: "[i]f any one party to a supposed contract was already dead at the time of its execution, such contract is undoubtedly simulated and false, and, therefore, null and void by reason of its having been made after the death of the party who appears as one of the contracting parties therein."
Step 3 — The codal provisions, reproduced. "In addition, Norman's authority to sell the subject property of Quintin stems from an alleged SPA that was never submitted in evidence. Basic are the following Civil Code provisions:" — and the Court then set out Article 1874 in full, Article 1878(5), and Article 1919(3) ("Agency is extinguished: ... (3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent").
Step 4 — The rule synthesised. "From these provisions, it is clear that under Article 1878, a special power of attorney is necessary for an agent to enter into any contract for the sale of real property. Not only that, Art. 1874 explicitly states that such authority for the sale of land through an agent, should be in writing, otherwise the sale shall be void."
Step 5 — The content standard, quoted from Dizon v. Court of Appeals.
The Court reproduced the same passage adopted in [MCIAA v.
Unchuan](/agency-trust-partnership/week-02/mciaa-v-unchuan) — footnote 83 of this decision expressly notes that Dizon is "cited in Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Unchuan, 786 Phil. 23, 38 (2016)" — including its concluding sentences: "For the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate, a power of attorney must so express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language. When there is any reasonable doubt that the language so used conveys such power, no such construction shall be given the document."
Step 6 — Application: two defects, one conclusion. "Verily, not only was the seller, Quintin, already deceased at the time of the sale on August 20, 1997, respondents also could not produce the mandatory requirement of a written SPA that would have authorized Norman to sell the land of Quintin. These are significant defects in the sale that renders the claim of ownership, including de facto possession, of respondents highly doubtful."
Step 7 — Extinguishment by death and its two exceptions (Article 1919(3); Article 1930; Article 1931). "Settled is the rule that an agency is extinguished by the death of the principal. It is by reason of the very nature of the relationship between a principal and an agent that any act of an agent after the death of his principal is void ab initio, except as explicitly provided for in the New Civil Code: (1) Art. 1930 when the agency is coupled with an interest, and (2) Art. 1931 when the agent performed an act for the principal without knowledge of the principal's death and the third person who contracted with him acted in good faith. Neither of which are alleged or applicable in this case."
The Court sourced the exceptions to Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation, 171 Phil. 222, 229 (1978).
Step 8 — The evidentiary rule on the written authority. "Additionally, it is not enough that the existence of an SPA be merely referred to in a deed of sale. It must be offered in evidence. If no evidence is offered, it only gives rise to the presumption that no such written authority exists."
(Citing Spouses Alcantara v. Nido, 632 Phil. 343, 351 (2010).)
Step 9 — Conclusion and its consequence for the ejectment suit. "Thus, absent a written SPA and for want of authority, as the seller was already deceased at the time of sale, the DOAS is void ab initio."
(Footnote 89 anchors the want-of-consent point on Article 1318.
"Not having acquired any right over the property in question, no right of respondents' could have been violated. Thus, respondents' evidence failed to prove their cause of action alleged in their pleadings."
Step 10 — The procedural and constitutional reasoning that permitted the Court to reach the merits. The Court held that certiorari was the wrong remedy, appeal under Rule 42 having been available and lost through negligence, the two being "mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive"
But it applied the recognized exceptions — "(b) when the broader interests of justice so requires" and "(d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority" — because the MeTC and RTC decisions lacked "the supporting facts, discussion on probative value of the evidence, and the legal basis," in contravention of Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution, and because "petitioner stands to lose a family home."

B. Doctrines / Rules / Principles Laid Down

A written special power is mandatory for the sale of land through an agent — the doctrinal takeaway for this Topic/Subtopic. Verbatim:

"From these provisions, it is clear that under Article 1878, a special power of attorney is necessary for an agent to enter into any contract for the sale of real property. Not only that, Art. 1874 explicitly states that such authority for the sale of land through an agent, should be in writing, otherwise the sale shall be void."
The SPA must be offered in evidence; reference to it in the deed will not do. Verbatim:

"Additionally, it is not enough that the existence of an SPA be merely referred to in a deed of sale. It must be offered in evidence. If no evidence is offered, it only gives rise to the presumption that no such written authority exists."
The content standard for the written authority (Dizon v. Court of Appeals, as adopted). "The express mandate required by law to enable an appointee of an agency (couched) in general terms to sell must be one that expressly mentions a sale or that includes a sale as a necessary ingredient of the act mentioned. For the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate, a power of attorney must so express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language."
Death of the principal extinguishes the agency (Article 1919(3)); acts thereafter are void ab initio, subject to two exceptions. Verbatim:

"It is by reason of the very nature of the relationship between a principal and an agent that any act of an agent after the death of his principal is void ab initio, except as explicitly provided for in the New Civil Code: (1) Art. 1930 when the agency is coupled with an interest, and (2) Art. 1931 when the agent performed an act for the principal without knowledge of the principal's death and the third person who contracted with him acted in good faith."
Death terminates contractual capacity; a contract executed after a party's death is simulated and void. "[I]f any one party to a supposed contract was already dead at the time of its execution, such contract is undoubtedly simulated and false, and, therefore, null and void" (Arakor Construction and Development Corporation v. Sta. Maria).
A void deed confers no de facto right of possession. "[T]hey have not established their de facto right of possession because there is no right of ownership to speak of, even in the provisional sense."
Burden of proof in ejectment lies on the plaintiff. "Actori incumbit onus probandi." "Ejectment can be maintained only by one having a present exclusive right to possession."
Provisional character of an ownership ruling in ejectment. "[T]he adjudication is merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property."
Constitutional requirement as to the form of decisions. Article VIII, Section 14: "No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based."

C. Distinctions / Limitations / Qualifications

Two independent grounds, and they should be recited separately. The Week 2(c) ground is the missing written SPA; the Week 6 ground (extinguishment of agency) is the principal's prior death. Either alone would have voided the deed. A recitation that merges them loses the Article 1874 point, which is the one assigned.
The evidentiary rule in Step 8 is the distinctive contribution of this case. Compare Sps. Bautista v. Sps. Jalandoni, where an SPA was likewise alleged and never produced. Alfiler states the consequence as a presumption: non-production "only gives rise to the presumption that no such written authority exists." That is the sentence to quote when a party says the SPA exists but is unavailable.
The Article 1930 and Article 1931 exceptions were held inapplicable because neither was alleged. The Court did not examine whether the agent knew of the death or whether the buyers were in good faith; it noted only that "[n]either of which are alleged or applicable in this case." The exceptions must therefore be pleaded and proved by the party invoking them — a point directly continuous with Rallos v. Felix Go Chan, which the Court cites.
The ownership ruling is provisional. The dismissal of the ejectment complaint does not settle title; petitioner's own claim under the 1985 Amicable Settlement was not adjudicated — "it is no longer necessary to discuss the evidence presented by petitioner."
The relaxation of procedure is exceptional and reasoned. The Court did not hold certiorari proper; it held the case to fall within two established exceptions, largely because the lower courts' decisions failed the constitutional standard and a family home was at stake. This should not be cited as authority for substituting certiorari for appeal.
Petitioner's jurisdictional objection was not passed upon. Whether the action should have been accion publiciana remains open on the face of the decision.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory)

The classification is DIRECT.
Alfiler is the most recent of the assigned Article 1874 cases and it is the one to cite for the proof requirement.
The other cases in the cluster establish that the authority must exist and be written ([AF Realty v.
Dieselman](/agency-trust-partnership/week-02/af-realty-v-dieselman-freight-services)), that it must be special and clearly worded ([MCIAA v.
Unchuan](/agency-trust-partnership/week-02/mciaa-v-unchuan)), and that a buyer who does not demand it forfeits the protection of good faith (Sps. Bautista v. Sps. Jalandoni).
Alfiler adds the litigation-stage rule: the party invoking the agency must offer the writing in evidence, and if he does not, the law presumes there is none — no matter that the deed of sale itself recites the SPA and even claims it as an attachment.
The case is also valuable for showing the downstream reach of Article 1874: because the deed was void, the buyers had no ownership even provisionally, and therefore could not maintain an ejectment suit at all — the formalities rule of Week 2 reached back and destroyed a possessory action decided in their favour by two courts.
Finally, the decision usefully pairs Article 1874 with Article 1919(3) and its two exceptions, giving the student the bridge from Week 2 (formalities) to Week 6 (extinguishment) in the Court's own words.

VII. Separate Opinions

None. The Decision was penned by Gesmundo, C.J., with Hernando, Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concurring. No separate concurring or dissenting opinion appears in the record.