Rio y Olabarrieta and Molina v.

Yu Tec & Co
FACTS:
Plaintiff, Rio is a co-partnership organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines. The defendant, Yu Tec and Co is a domestic corporation and the
defendant, Calvin is of age and a resident of Manila.
Rio alleges that Yu Tec & Co, which was then a limited partnership, authorized its
agent, J.V. Molina to find a purchaser or a lessee of a tract of land belonging to it
located on Calle Velasquez, Tondo Manila.
Within the time given, the agent found a purchaser in the name of plaintiff (Rio)
which offered to purchase the land for the sum of P 40,000 and that Molina, its
agent, made known its offer to the respondent company which refused to accept it.
Yu Tec offered to sell the land for P42,000 instead, of which P7,000 was to be paid
on the signing of the contract, and the balance within 2 years, with interest of 8%
and the remaining P25,000 at the end of the second year, all to be secured by a 1 st
mortgage.
Rio accepted the offer but Yu Tec company made several excuses and refused to
carry out the agreement.
That defendant, Calvin, with full knowledge of the facts and within the specified
period, fraudulently conspiring with Yu Tec, entered into a contract by which he
purchased the property from the company.
By reason thereof, Rio suffered damages in the sum of P 12,000 and prays that the
sale to Calvin be declared null and void, and ordering company to comply with the
contract and to execute a deed to Rio and to pay damages of P12,000.
TRIAL COURT: the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant corporation for P6,994.65, with legal interest from the filing of the
complaint and costs, and denied the prayer of the plaintiff for the execution to it of
a deed of the property by the defendant corporation, and dismissed the action as to
the defendant Calvin.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contract of purchase and sale of real property is void
unless the authority of the agent be in writing and subscribed by the party sought
to be charged
COMPLIAINT: alleges that the defendant company authorized Molina as its agent
"to look for purchasers or lessees of a piece of land" in question.
DEFENDANT: In the further answer of the defendant company, it is specifically
alleged that the agreement for the sale in question was not made in writing.

RULING: YES.
Molina, the agent, could not enforce the specific performance of Exhibit B.
There is no evidence in the record of any written contract between Rio and Yu Tec
for the sale and purchase of the real property
Exhibit B (letter giving authority to J. Molina as agent of Yu Tec and if the
latter shall not take advantage of selling it within the time given, the authority given
shall be cancelled) is nothing more than an authority to sell
While Exhibit B might be construed as fixing the price of the sale of the parcel
of land, it does not specify the terms and conditions upon which the sale was to be
made
Since Exhibit B already expired, that fact would destroy the legal force and
effect of Exhibit C (specified and defined the terms and conditions of any sale made
by Molina
In the absence of a renewal or extension in writing signed by the party to be
charged or its agent, Molina had no authority to sell the property upon any terms
and conditions after the stipulated period.