Title
Woodchild Holdings, Inc. vs. Roxas Electric and Construction Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 140667
Decision Date
Aug 12, 2004
RECCI sold land to WHI but failed to evict squatters, delaying construction. Court ruled RECCI liable for damages but voided unauthorized provisions in the sale.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140667)

Project Development and Lease Commitment

Wimbeco Builders quoted P8,649,000 to construct a warehouse on a 5,088 sqm portion, to start on October 1, 1991 and finish by February 29, 1992. Ponderosa Leather Goods Company confirmed a lease of 5,000 sqm at P65/sqm, contingent on readiness by April 1, 1992. Construction was postponed due to squatters; contract renegotiated in March 1992 at P11,804,160. Building permit was secured only on May 28, 1992, with occupancy certificate on March 21, 1993; lease commenced March 1, 1993.

Trial Court Proceedings and Relief Sought

WHI filed for specific performance of the easement and option to buy 500 sqm at P1,000/sqm, annotation on TCT No. 78085, actual damages (P3,560,000 construction overrun), unrealized rental income (P2,100,000), attorney’s fees (P100,000), and costs. The RTC held RECCI estopped from denying Roxas’s authority and granted all reliefs including sale of 500 sqm, annotation, P5,568,000 damages, and fees.

Court of Appeals Reversal

The CA found Roxas’s authority limited to selling Lot No. 491-A-3-B-2 and not to granting easements or options on the adjacent lot. It ruled the stipulations ultra vires, as RECCI’s board never authorized creation of any burden on Lot No. 491-A-3-B-1 in a public document, and held WHI responsible for construction delay due to late permit filing. The complaint was dismissed.

Supreme Court Issue Framing

  1. Enforceability of easement and option in the deed of absolute sale.
  2. RECCI’s alleged failure to eject squatters within two weeks.
  3. Liability for damages.

Agency Authority and Formality Requirements

Under BP 68 Sec. 23 and Civil Code Arts. 1878(12), 1358(1), a corporate officer may not create real rights over immovables without express board authorization in a public document or special power of attorney. Roxas was empowered only to sell Lot No. 491-A-3-B-2. No written resolution authorized easement or sale of any portion of Lot No. 491-A-3-B-1; such authority cannot be implied. Absent express or tacit ratification by RECCI, these stipulations are unenforceable (Art. 1910).

Apparent Authority and Ratification Analysis

Apparent authority requires principal’s knowing acquiescence or conduct leading a prudent third party to reasonably believe in the agent’s power, and detrimental reliance. No evidence shows RECCI knowledge or approval of Roxas’s easement and option stipulations. Retention of P5,000,000 purchase price for Lot No. 491-A-3-B-2 cannot constitute implied ratification of unauthorized acts. Ratification of acts requiring written authority must also be in writing.

Liability for Delay and Damages

RECCI admits it did n

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.