In the 1950s, a woman leased a parcel of land with improvements from
the siblings, who inherited the said land from their deceased parents.
In 1988, the siblings offered to sell the property to the woman for
P500,000. Although the woman accepted the offer, the sale did not
materialize due to the fault of the landowners. Nonetheless, the woman
and her family continued to occupy and use the property with the consent
of the siblings.
In 1994, the woman’s son desired to renew his mother’s option to
purchase the subject property. After a series of negotiations with the
eldest of the siblings who introduced himself as representing the other
landowners, they entered into an oral contract of sale. A year after, he
made partial payments amounting to P160,000, which the eldest sibling
duly acknowledged and received. But despite his numerous attempts to pay
the remaining balance, the son was unable to do so because the eldest
sibling avoided him.
In 1997, the son demanded that the siblings execute a Deed of
Absolute Sale in exchange for the full payment of the agreed price.
Because his demand remained unheeded, he filed a complaint against them
for specific performance with damages. He likewise sought to nullify the
subsequent sale of said property when he discovered that it was sold to
another buyer.
The Regional Trial Court upheld the validity of the oral contract of
sale between the woman’s son and the eldest sibling. It ordered the
siblings to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the son upon
payment of the balance and nullified the subsequent sale to the other
buyer.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the lower court’s
decision. It upheld the validity of the oral contract of sale between
the son and the eldest sibling only insofar as the share of latter in
the property is concerned. Based on its findings, it was only the eldest
sibling who consented to the sale. For want of authority to sell the
other portions of the land belonging to his siblings, the eldest sibling
is deemed to have only sold his aliquot share in the property.
In affirming the ruling of the CA, the Supreme Court emphasized the
requirement of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) before an agent may
sell immovable property. Article 1878 of the Civil Code requires the
execution of a SPA for an agent “to enter into any contract by which the
ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either
gratuitously or for a valuable consideration.” Likewise, Article 1874 of
the same Code states that “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.”
In this case, the eldest sibling had no SPA or written authority from
his siblings, his co-owners, to sell the subject property. Hence, the
sale of the portions of the property belonging to the other siblings is
invalid. When the woman’s son relied on the words of the eldest sibling
without first securing a copy of the SPA in favor of the latter, he did
so at his own risk and must, therefore, be bound by it. Regarding this
matter, the High Court has held - Persons dealing with an assumed agency, whether [it] be a general or
special one, are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal
liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and
extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of
proof is upon them to establish it (Recio v. Heirs of Altamirano, G.R. No. 182349, 24 July 2013, J. Reyes).
source: Manila Times Column of Benchpress
Sunday, September 22, 2013
WILLS: Testators presumed to be of sound mind
Dear PAO,
I would like to ask for your legal advice regarding the last will and testament of my deceased father. My other siblings contest my father’s will by alleging that he was not in the right mind when he made his last will since he was already very old during that time. My father was around 80 yrs old when he made his last will but I believe that he was still aware and in the right mind when he made it. How would I prove that my father was in his right mind when he made the will?
Richie
Dear Richie,
It is not for you to prove that your father was of sound mind when he made his will. Rather, it is up to your siblings to prove their allegation that your father was not in the right mind at the time of the execution of his will. This is because the law gives the presumption that a person making a will is of sound mind unless proven otherwise.
The law on testamentary capacity clearly states that:
“Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval” (Civil Code of The Philippines).
As explicitly provided by the law, it is up to those who oppose the will to prove the absence of a sound mind by the testator. On the other hand, you will only be required to prove the sanity of your father as the testator if he was previously known to be insane before he made the will.
Furthermore, one’s legal capacity to make a will is unhampered by mere old age since the law precisely states how to determine if the testator was of sound mind in relation to the execution of his will, to which it states that:
“Article 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act” (Civil Code of The Philippines).
Thus, it is the testator’s awareness and knowledge on the nature of his estate being disposed, the particular object involved, and the character of his testamentary act, which are ultimately considered in determining whether he is of sound mind when he executed the will.
Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.
We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.
source: Manila Times Column by Atty Persida Acosta
I would like to ask for your legal advice regarding the last will and testament of my deceased father. My other siblings contest my father’s will by alleging that he was not in the right mind when he made his last will since he was already very old during that time. My father was around 80 yrs old when he made his last will but I believe that he was still aware and in the right mind when he made it. How would I prove that my father was in his right mind when he made the will?
Richie
Dear Richie,
It is not for you to prove that your father was of sound mind when he made his will. Rather, it is up to your siblings to prove their allegation that your father was not in the right mind at the time of the execution of his will. This is because the law gives the presumption that a person making a will is of sound mind unless proven otherwise.
The law on testamentary capacity clearly states that:
“Article 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval” (Civil Code of The Philippines).
As explicitly provided by the law, it is up to those who oppose the will to prove the absence of a sound mind by the testator. On the other hand, you will only be required to prove the sanity of your father as the testator if he was previously known to be insane before he made the will.
Furthermore, one’s legal capacity to make a will is unhampered by mere old age since the law precisely states how to determine if the testator was of sound mind in relation to the execution of his will, to which it states that:
“Article 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause.
It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act” (Civil Code of The Philippines).
Thus, it is the testator’s awareness and knowledge on the nature of his estate being disposed, the particular object involved, and the character of his testamentary act, which are ultimately considered in determining whether he is of sound mind when he executed the will.
Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.
We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.
source: Manila Times Column by Atty Persida Acosta
Monday, September 16, 2013
SALES: Special Power of Attorney required for agent to sell land
In the 1950s, a woman leased a parcel of land with improvements from
the siblings, who inherited the said land from their deceased parents.
In 1988, the siblings offered to sell the property to the woman for
P500,000. Although the woman accepted the offer, the sale did not
materialize due to the fault of the landowners. Nonetheless, the woman
and her family continued to occupy and use the property with the consent
of the siblings.
In 1994, the woman’s son desired to renew his mother’s option to purchase the subject property. After a series of negotiations with the eldest of the siblings who introduced himself as representing the other landowners, they entered into an oral contract of sale. A year after, he made partial payments amounting to P160,000, which the eldest sibling duly acknowledged and received. But despite his numerous attempts to pay the remaining balance, the son was unable to do so because the eldest sibling avoided him.
In 1997, the son demanded that the siblings execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in exchange for the full payment of the agreed price. Because his demand remained unheeded, he filed a complaint against them for specific performance with damages. He likewise sought to nullify the subsequent sale of said property when he discovered that it was sold to another buyer.
The Regional Trial Court upheld the validity of the oral contract of sale between the woman’s son and the eldest sibling. It ordered the siblings to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the son upon payment of the balance and nullified the subsequent sale to the other buyer.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the lower court’s decision. It upheld the validity of the oral contract of sale between the son and the eldest sibling only insofar as the share of latter in the property is concerned. Based on its findings, it was only the eldest sibling who consented to the sale. For want of authority to sell the other portions of the land belonging to his siblings, the eldest sibling is deemed to have only sold his aliquot share in the property.
In affirming the ruling of the CA, the Supreme Court emphasized the requirement of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) before an agent may sell immovable property. Article 1878 of the Civil Code requires the execution of a SPA for an agent “to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration.” Likewise, Article 1874 of the same Code states that “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.”
In this case, the eldest sibling had no SPA or written authority from his siblings, his co-owners, to sell the subject property. Hence, the sale of the portions of the property belonging to the other siblings is invalid. When the woman’s son relied on the words of the eldest sibling without first securing a copy of the SPA in favor of the latter, he did so at his own risk and must, therefore, be bound by it. Regarding this matter, the High Court has held - Persons dealing with an assumed agency, whether [it] be a general or special one, are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it (Recio v. Heirs of Altamirano, G.R. No. 182349, 24 July 2013, J. Reyes).
source: Manila Times' Column of Benchpress
In 1994, the woman’s son desired to renew his mother’s option to purchase the subject property. After a series of negotiations with the eldest of the siblings who introduced himself as representing the other landowners, they entered into an oral contract of sale. A year after, he made partial payments amounting to P160,000, which the eldest sibling duly acknowledged and received. But despite his numerous attempts to pay the remaining balance, the son was unable to do so because the eldest sibling avoided him.
In 1997, the son demanded that the siblings execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in exchange for the full payment of the agreed price. Because his demand remained unheeded, he filed a complaint against them for specific performance with damages. He likewise sought to nullify the subsequent sale of said property when he discovered that it was sold to another buyer.
The Regional Trial Court upheld the validity of the oral contract of sale between the woman’s son and the eldest sibling. It ordered the siblings to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the son upon payment of the balance and nullified the subsequent sale to the other buyer.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the lower court’s decision. It upheld the validity of the oral contract of sale between the son and the eldest sibling only insofar as the share of latter in the property is concerned. Based on its findings, it was only the eldest sibling who consented to the sale. For want of authority to sell the other portions of the land belonging to his siblings, the eldest sibling is deemed to have only sold his aliquot share in the property.
In affirming the ruling of the CA, the Supreme Court emphasized the requirement of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) before an agent may sell immovable property. Article 1878 of the Civil Code requires the execution of a SPA for an agent “to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration.” Likewise, Article 1874 of the same Code states that “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.”
In this case, the eldest sibling had no SPA or written authority from his siblings, his co-owners, to sell the subject property. Hence, the sale of the portions of the property belonging to the other siblings is invalid. When the woman’s son relied on the words of the eldest sibling without first securing a copy of the SPA in favor of the latter, he did so at his own risk and must, therefore, be bound by it. Regarding this matter, the High Court has held - Persons dealing with an assumed agency, whether [it] be a general or special one, are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it (Recio v. Heirs of Altamirano, G.R. No. 182349, 24 July 2013, J. Reyes).
source: Manila Times' Column of Benchpress
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Rent control law covers residential units with monthly rent of P10,000 and below
Dear PAO,
I am renting a condo unit for P15,000 a month. The owner would like to increase the rent to P17,000 a month, four months before the end of the lease contract. Is this not in violation of the Rent Control Law?
Peter
I am renting a condo unit for P15,000 a month. The owner would like to increase the rent to P17,000 a month, four months before the end of the lease contract. Is this not in violation of the Rent Control Law?
Peter
Dear Peter,
The law you are referring to in your letter is Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9653 or the Rent Control Act of 2009. Under this law, the lessor of a residential unit may not increase the rent by more than 7% per annum as long as the unit is occupied by the same lessee (Section 4, R.A. No. 9653).
The law you are referring to in your letter is Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9653 or the Rent Control Act of 2009. Under this law, the lessor of a residential unit may not increase the rent by more than 7% per annum as long as the unit is occupied by the same lessee (Section 4, R.A. No. 9653).
A residential unit as defined by the said law is as follows:
“Residential unit shall refer to an apartment, house and/or land on which another’s dwelling is located and used for residential purposes and shall include not only buildings, part or units thereof used solely as dwelling places, boarding houses, dormitories, rooms and bedspaces offered for rent by their owners, except motels, motel rooms, hotels, hotel rooms, but also those used for home industries, retail stores or other business purposes if the owner thereof and his or her family actually live therein and use it principally for dwelling purposes.”
However, only those residential units where the monthly rent does not exceed P10,000.00 in Metro Manila and other highly urbanized city or P5,000.00 in other places are covered by the said law (Section 4, RA No. 9653).
Since, your monthly rent exceeds the amounts aforementioned, you are not covered by the said law. Thus, the owner of the condominium unit you are renting may increase the amount of rent. Nevertheless, he may do so only after the expiration of the period as stipulated in the contract of lease. In other words, he cannot amend the provision of the lease contract insofar as the monthly rental is concerned, unless you are amenable to the same. If he insists on collecting higher rent than what was agreed upon, he is violating the said contract which will entitle you to either rescind or cause the fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the contract which was violated plus damages in either case (Article 1191, New Civil Code of the Philippines).
Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.
We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.
source: Manila Times Column of Atty Persida Acosta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)