INSTRUCTIONS FOR 

TASK NO. 5 (FINAL PERIOD)

 
1. For our online/synchronous class this coming Monday please refer to the announcement I
made in the Facebook Messenger and/or Google Classroom. Attached therewith is the copy of
the PowerPoint that we'll be utilizing for said online/synchronous class. Study the whole
PowerPoint as we'll have a graded recitation. You can conduct further readings and researches
relating to the topics to be discussed; 

2. Read and study this case, either thru its full text or digest or both.
2.1. SPOUSES JOSELINA ALCANTARA AND ANTONIO ALCANTARA vs. BRIGIDA L. NIDO, as
attorney-in-fact of REVELEN N. SRIVASTAVA, G.R. No. 165133, April 19, 2010
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_165133_2010.html?
fbclid=IwAR1v4P8r3AvKyDO7Mn5XGVS3uaR88KwKZCsHBSd9cZtx8WaXNyiWA8wf8ZQ)
3. After reading and analyzing the said case or its digest, fill up this Table with your answers:
Questions Answers
1. . Who were the 2 spouses Antonio and Joselina Alcantara and spouses Josefino
contending parties or persons and Annie Rubi - petitioners
in the case?
Brigida Nido, as attorney-in-fact of Revelen Srivastava -
respondent
2. What are the important Revelen, who is respondent’s daughter and of legal age, is the
facts in the said case that are owner of an unregistered land with an area of 1,939 square
also related to the topics in the meters located in Cardona, Rizal. Sometime in March 1984,
above-mentioned PowerPoint? respondent accepted the offer of petitioners to purchase a
200-square meter portion of Revelen’s lot (lot) at ₱200 per
square meter. Petitioners paid ₱3,000 as downpayment and
the balance was payable on installment. 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
₱17,5005 before petitioners defaulted on their installment
payments.

On 11 May 1994, respondent, 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 with the RTC.
3. What is the issue or dispute Is the contract valid or void?
in the said case or why were
those parties contending with
each other?
4. What were the arguments or The petitioner claims that because Revelen accepted their
standpoint or reasoning of the offer to purchase the land, the contract is valid.

1
2 parties or persons
contending in said case? The respondents claim that the contract is void a since it was
merely orally agreed.
5. Give the brief decision or The Supreme Court ruled:
ruling of the Supreme Court
and explain briefly why it is The contract is void.
related to the topic.
The petition was denied by the Supreme Court.

According to the petitioners, given the spirit and intent of the

law, the sale of land by an agent who lacks written authority
is not void but merely voidable. The contract may be ratified
expressly or impliedly despite just being voidable. Petitioners
argue that the appeal court ought to have addressed the
counterclaim for specific performance as the contract to sell
was sufficiently established by respondent's admission during
the pre-trial conference.

Furthermore, respondent argued that because there is no

evidence in the records to support petitioners' claim that
they have completely paid the price of the lot, the appeal
court cannot legally rule on their counterclaim. Respondent
draws attention to the fact that petitioners acknowledged
their lack of formal authorization to sell. Additionally, the
respondent claims that there was no evidence of a
settlement among the parties about the alleged contract of
sales.

The case is related to some of the topics included in the

PowerPoint (Ppt) because:

 This case involves a sale of land/property through an

agent. Under the New Civil Code is one exception to
the general rule that contracts be written or oral and
that an agency can sell land or any interest therein,
the authorization of the agent must only be in form of
writing; otherwise, the sale would be void. Whereas,
in this case, respondents acknowledged that there is
no legal authorization to sell because the respondent
only provided an oral agreement and no written
authority.

2
4. Make the said Table in a Word document and submit the same to me via GOOGLE
CLASSROOM on or before the START OF OUR CLASS SESSION THIS COMING
MONDAY.  Stay safe and God bless!