Litonjua V Eternit

Litonjua, Jr. v Eternit Corporation (2006, Callejo, Sr.) PARTIES: Eduardo Lintonjua, Jr.
& Antonio Litonjua, Petitioners-Plaintiff Eternit Corp., Eteroutremer, S.A. & Far East Bank & Trust Company, Respondents-Defendant FACTS: Eternit Corp. (EC) is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of roofing materials and pipe products. Its manufacturing operations were conducted on eight parcels of land under the name of Far East Bank & Trust Company, as trustee. 90% of the shares of stocks of EC were owned by Eteroutremer S.A. Corporation (ESAC), a corporation organized and registered under the laws of Belgium. Jack Glanville was the General Manager and President of EC, while Claude Frederick Delsaux was the Regional Director for Asia of ESAC. in 1986, the management of ESAC grew concerned about the political situation in the Philippines and wanted to stop its operations in the country. The Committee for Asia of ESAC instructed Michael Adams, a member of ECs Board of Directors, to dispose of the eight parcels of land. Adams engaged the services of realtor/broker Lauro G. Marquez so that the properties could be offered for sale to prospective buyers. Marquez thereafter offered the parcels of land and the improvements thereon to Eduardo B. Litonjua, Jr. of the Litonjua & Company, Inc. In a Letter dated September 12, 1986, Marquez declared that he was authorized to sell the properties for P27,000,000.00 and that the terms of the sale were subject to negotiation. Eduardo Litonjua, Jr. responded to the offer. The Litonjua siblings offered to buy the property for P20,000,000.00 cash. Marquez apprised Glanville of the Litonjua siblings offer and relayed the same to Delsaux in Belgium, but the latter did not respond. On October 28, 1986, Glanville telexed Delsaux in Belgium, inquiring on his position/ counterproposal to the offer of the Litonjua siblings. It was only on February 12, 1987 that Delsaux sent a telex to Glanville stating that, based on the "Belgian/Swiss decision," the final offer was "US$1,000,000.00 and P2,500,000.00. Litonjua, Jr. accepted the counterproposal of Delsaux. Marquez conferred with Glanville, and in a Letter dated February 26, 1987, confirmed that the Litonjua siblings had accepted the counter-proposal of Delsaux. The Litonjua brothers deposited the amount of US$1,000,000.00 with the Security Bank & Trust Company, Ermita Branch, and drafted an Escrow Agreement to expedite the sale. With the assumption of Corazon C. Aquino as President of the Republic of the Philippines, the political situation in the Philippines had improved. Marquez received a telephone call from Glanville, advising that the sale would no longer proceed. The Litonjuas then filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against EC and the Far East Bank & Trust Company, and ESAC. In their answer to the complaint, EC and ESAC alleged that since Eteroutremer was not doing business in the Philippines, it cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts; the Board and stockholders of EC never approved any resolution to sell subject
properties nor authorized Marquez to sell the same; and the telex dated October 28, 1986 of Jack Glanville was his own personal making which did not bind EC. Trial court rendered judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the amended complaint. Since the authority of the agents/realtors was not in writing, the sale is void and not merely unenforceable, and as such, could not have been ratified by the principal. Plaintiffs could not assume that defendants had agreed to sell the property without a clear authorization from the corporation concerned, that is, through resolutions of the Board of Directors and stockholders. Litonjuas appealed the decision to the CA. They averred that Marquez acted merely as a broker or go-between and not as agent of the corporation; hence, it was not necessary for him to be empowered as such by any written authority. They further claimed that an agency by estoppel was created when the corporation clothed Marquez with apparent authority to negotiate for the sale of the properties. CA affirmed the RTC decision. CA ruled that Marquez, who was a real estate broker, was a special agent within the purview of Article 1874 of the New Civil Code. Under Section 23 of the Corporation Code, he needed a special authority from ECs board of directors to bind such corporation to the sale of its properties. Delsaux, who was merely the representative of ESAC (the majority stockholder of EC) had no authority to bind the latter. The CA pointed out that Delsaux was not even a member of the board of directors of EC.
ISSUE(s): WON Glanville and Delsaux had the necessary authority to sell the subject property?
Petitioners assert that there was no need for a written authority from the Board of Directors of EC for Marquez to validly act as broker. As broker, Marquez was not an ordinary agent because his authority was of a special and limited character. His only job as a broker was to look for a buyer and to bring together the parties to the transaction. He was not authorized to sell the properties or to make a binding contract to respondent EC; hence, petitioners argue, Article 1874 of the New Civil Code does not apply. Petitioners posit that the Glanville and Delsaux had the necessary authority to sell the subject property or, at least, had been allowed by respondent EC to hold themselves out in the public as having the power to sell the subject properties. They insist that it is incongruous for Glanville and Delsaux to make a counter-offer to petitioners offer and thereafter reject such offer unless they were authorized to do so by respondent EC.
HELD/RATIO:
A corporation is a juridical person separate and distinct from its members or stockholders. It may act only through its board of directors or, when authorized either by its by-laws or by its board resolution, through its officers or agents in the normal course of business. The property of a corporation is not the property of the stockholders or members, and as such, may not be sold without express authority from the board of directors. Physical acts, like the offering of the properties of the corporation for sale, or the acceptance of a counter-offer of prospective buyers of such properties and the execution of the deed of sale covering such property, can be performed by the corporation only by officers or agents duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by specific acts of the board of directors.
Any sale of real property of a corporation by a person purporting to be an agent thereof but without written authority from the corporation is null and void. Agency may be oral unless the law requires a specific form. However, to create or convey real rights over immovable property, a special power of attorney is necessary. Thus, when a sale of a piece of land or any portion thereof is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing, otherwise, the sale shall be void. While Glanville was the President and General Manager of respondent EC, and Adams and Delsaux were members of its Board of Directors, the three acted for and in behalf of respondent ESAC, and not as duly authorized agents of respondent EC. Although, respondent ESAC owned 90% of the shares of stocks of respondent EC, the mere fact that a corporation owns a majority of the shares of stocks of another, or even all of such shares of stocks, taken alone, will not justify their being treated as one corporation. It appears that Marquez acted not only as real estate broker for the petitioners but also as their agent. However, Marquez had no authority to bind respondent EC to sell the subject properties.
DISPOSITIVE: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.

Litonjua V Eternit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Litonjua V Eternit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Litonjua V Eternit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Litonjua, Jr. v Eternit Corporation (2006, Callejo, Sr.) PARTIES: Eduardo Lintonjua, Jr.

You might also like