FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 129459 September 29, 1998

SAN JUAN STRUCTURAL AND STEEL FABRICATORS, INC., petitioner, 

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, MOTORICH SALES CORPORATION, NENITA LEE GRUENBERG,
ACL DEVELOPMENT CORP. and JNM REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

May corporate treasurer, by herself and without any authorization from he board of directors,
validly sell a parcel of land owned by the corporation?. May the veil of corporate fiction be
pierced on the mere ground that almost all of the shares of stock of the corporation are owned by
said treasurer and her husband?

The Case

These questions are answered in the negative by this Court in resolving the Petition for Review
on Certiorari before us, assailing the March 18, 1997 Decision   of the Court of Appeals   in CA
1 2

GR CV No. 46801 which, in turn, modified the July 18, 1994 Decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 63  in Civil Case No. 89-3511. The RTC dismissed both the
3

Complaint and the Counterclaim filed by the parties. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals
ruled:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED WITH

MODIFICATION ordering defendant-appellee Nenita Lee Gruenberg to REFUND
or return to plaintiff-appellant the downpayment of P100,000.00 which she
received from plaintiff-appellant. There is no pronouncement as to costs.  4

The petition also challenges the June 10, 1997 CA Resolution denying reconsideration.  5

The Facts

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals are as follows:

Plaintiff-appellant San Juan Structural and Steel Fabricators, Inc.'s amended

complaint alleged that on 14 February 1989, plaintiff-appellant entered into an
agreement with defendant-appellee Motorich Sales Corporation for the transfer to
it of a parcel of land identified as Lot 30, Block 1 of the Acropolis Greens
Subdivision located in the District of Murphy, Quezon City. Metro Manila,
containing an area of Four Hundred Fourteen (414) square meters, covered by
TCT No. (362909) 2876: that as stipulated in the Agreement of 14 February
1989, plaintiff-appellant paid the downpayment in the sum of One Hundred
Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos, the balance to be paid on or before March 2,
1989; that on March 1, 1989. Mr. Andres T. Co, president of plaintiff-appellant
corporation, wrote a letter to defendant-appellee Motorich Sales Corporation
requesting for a computation of the balance to be paid: that said letter was
coursed through defendant-appellee's broker. Linda Aduca, who wrote the
computation of the balance: that on March 2, 1989, plaintiff-appellant was ready
with the amount corresponding to the balance, covered by Metrobank Cashier's
Check No. 004223, payable to defendant-appellee Motorich Sales Corporation;
that plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellee Motorich Sales Corporation were
supposed to meet in the office of plaintiff-appellant but defendant-appellee's
treasurer, Nenita Lee Gruenberg, did not appear; that defendant-appellee
Motorich Sales Corporation despite repeated demands and in utter disregard of
its commitments had refused to execute the Transfer of Rights/Deed of
Assignment which is necessary to transfer the certificate of title; that defendant
ACL Development Corp. is impleaded as a necessary party since Transfer
Certificate of Title No. (362909) 2876 is still in the name of said defendant; while
defendant JNM Realty & Development Corp. is likewise impleaded as a
necessary party in view of the fact that it is the transferor of right in favor of
defendant-appellee Motorich Sales Corporation: that on April 6, 1989, defendant
ACL Development Corporation and Motorich Sales Corporation entered into a
Deed of Absolute Sale whereby the former transferred to the latter the subject
property; that by reason of said transfer, the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City
issued a new title in the name of Motorich Sales Corporation, represented by
defendant-appellee Nenita Lee Gruenberg and Reynaldo L. Gruenberg, under
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3571; that as a result of defendants-appellees
Nenita Lee Gruenberg and Motorich Sales Corporation's bad faith in refusing to
execute a formal Transfer of Rights/Deed of Assignment, plaintiff-appellant
suffered moral and nominal damages which may be assessed against
defendants-appellees in the sum of Five Hundred Thousand (500,000.00) Pesos;
that as a result of defendants-appellees Nenita Lee Gruenberg and Motorich
Sales Corporation's unjustified and unwarranted failure to execute the required
Transfer of Rights/Deed of Assignment or formal deed of sale in favor of plaintiff-
appellant, defendants-appellees should be assessed exemplary damages in the
sum of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos; that by reason of
defendants-appellees' bad faith in refusing to execute a Transfer of Rights/Deed
of Assignment in favor of plaintiff-appellant, the latter lost the opportunity to
construct a residential building in the sum of One Hundred Thousand
(P100,000.00) Pesos; and that as a consequence of defendants-appellees Nenita
Lee Gruenberg and Motorich Sales Corporation's bad faith in refusing to execute
a deed of sale in favor of plaintiff-appellant, it has been constrained to obtain the
services of counsel at an agreed fee of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00)
Pesos plus appearance fee for every appearance in court hearings.

In its answer, defendants-appellees Motorich Sales Corporation and Nenita Lee

Gruenberg interposed as affirmative defense that the President and Chairman of
Motorich did not sign the agreement adverted to in par. 3 of the amended
complaint; that Mrs. Gruenberg's signature on the agreement (ref: par. 3 of
Amended Complaint) is inadequate to bind Motorich. The other signature, that of
Mr. Reynaldo Gruenberg, President and Chairman of Motorich, is required: that
plaintiff knew this from the very beginning as it was presented a copy of the
Transfer of Rights (Annex B of amended complaint) at the time the Agreement
(Annex B of amended complaint) was signed; that plaintiff-appellant itself drafted
the Agreement and insisted that Mrs. Gruenberg accept the P100,000.00 as
earnest money; that granting, without admitting, the enforceability of the
agreement, plaintiff-appellant nonetheless failed to pay in legal tender within the
stipulated period (up to March 2, 1989); that it was the understanding between
Mrs. Gruenberg and plaintiff-appellant that the Transfer of Rights/Deed of
Assignment will be signed only upon receipt of cash payment; thus they agreed
that if the payment be in check, they will meet at a bank designated by plaintiff-
appellant where they will encash the check and sign the Transfer of Rights/Deed.
However, plaintiff-appellant informed Mrs. Gruenberg of the alleged availability of
the check, by phone, only after banking hours.
 On the basis of the evidence, the court a quo rendered the judgment appealed
from[,] dismissing plaintiff-appellant's complaint, ruling that:

The issue to be resolved is: whether plaintiff had the right to

compel defendants to execute a deed of absolute sale in
accordance with the agreement of February 14, 1989: and if so,
whether plaintiff is entitled to damage.

As to the first question, there is no evidence to show that

defendant Nenita Lee Gruenberg was indeed authorized by
defendant corporation. Motorich Sales, to dispose of that property
covered by T.C.T. No. (362909) 2876. Since the property is
clearly owned by the corporation. Motorich Sales, then its
disposition should be governed by the requirement laid down in
Sec. 40. of the Corporation Code of the Philippines, to wit:

Sec. 40, Sale or other disposition of assets.

Subject to the provisions of existing laws on illegal
combination and monopolies, a corporation may
by a majority vote of its board of directors . . . sell,
lease, exchange, mortgage, pledge or otherwise
dispose of all or substantially all of its property and
assets including its goodwill . . . when authorized
by the vote of the stockholders representing at
least two third (2/3) of the outstanding capital
stock . . .

No such vote was obtained by defendant Nenita Lee Gruenberg

for that proposed sale[;] neither was there evidence to show that
the supposed transaction was ratified by the corporation. Plaintiff
should have been on the look out under these circumstances.
More so, plaintiff himself [owns] several corporations (tsn dated
August 16, 1993, p. 3) which makes him knowledgeable on
corporation matters.

Regarding the question of damages, the Court likewise, does not

find substantial evidence to hold defendant Nenita Lee Gruenberg
liable considering that she did not in anyway misrepresent herself
to be authorized by the corporation to sell the property to plaintiff
(tsn dated September 27, 1991, p. 8).

In the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment

DISMISSING the complaint at instance for lack of merit.

"Defendants" counterclaim is also DISMISSED for lack of basis.

(Decision, pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 34-35)

For clarity, the Agreement dated February 14, 1989 is reproduced hereunder:

AGREEMENT

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This Agreement, made and entered into by and between:

 MOTORICH SALES CORPORATION, a corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of Philippine Laws,
with principal office address at 5510 South Super Hi-way cor.
Balderama St., Pio del Pilar. Makati, Metro Manila, represented
herein by its Treasurer, NENITA LEE GRUENBERG, hereinafter
referred to as the TRANSFEROR;

— and —

SAN JUAN STRUCTURAL & STEEL FABRICATORS, a

corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the
laws of the Philippines, with principal office address at Sumulong
Highway, Barrio Mambungan, Antipolo, Rizal, represented herein
by its President, ANDRES T. CO, hereinafter referred to as the
TRANSFEREE.

WITNESSETH, That:

WHEREAS, the TRANSFEROR is the owner of a parcel of land identified as Lot

30 Block 1 of the ACROPOLIS GREENS SUBDIVISION located at the District of
Murphy, Quezon City, Metro Manila, containing an area of FOUR HUNDRED
FOURTEEN (414) SQUARE METERS, covered by a TRANSFER OF RIGHTS
between JNM Realty & Dev. Corp. as the Transferor and Motorich Sales Corp. as
the Transferee;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, the

parties have agreed as follows:

1. That the purchase price shall be at FIVE THOUSAND TWO

HUNDRED PESOS (P5,200.00) per square meter; subject to the
following terms:

a. Earnest money amounting to ONE HUNDRED

THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00), will be paid
upon the execution of this agreement and shall
form part of the total purchase price;

b. Balance shall be payable on or before March 2,

1989;

2. That the monthly amortization for the month of February 1989

shall be for the account of the Transferor; and that the monthly
amortization starting March 21, 1989 shall be for the account of
the Transferee;

The transferor warrants that he [sic] is the lawful owner of the above-described
property and that there [are] no existing liens and/or encumbrances of
whatsoever nature;

In case of failure by the Transferee to pay the balance on the date specified on 1,
(b), the earnest money shall be forfeited in favor of the Transferor.

That upon full payment of the balance, the TRANSFEROR agrees to execute a
TRANSFER OF RIGHTS/DEED OF ASSIGNMENT in favor of the
TRANSFEREE.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands this 14th day
of February, 1989 at Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines.

MOTORICH SALES CORPORATION SAN JUAN STRUCTURAL & STEEL

FABRICATORS

TRANSFEROR TRANSFEREE

[SGD.] [SGD.]

By. NENITA LEE GRUENBERG By: ANDRES T. CO

Treasurer President

Signed In the presence of:

[SGD.] [SGD.]

————————————— ——————————— 6

In its recourse before the Court of Appeals, petitioner insisted:

1. Appellant is entitled to compel the appellees to execute a Deed

of Absolute Sale in accordance with the Agreement of February
14, 1989,

2. Plaintiff is entitled to damages. 

7

As stated earlier, the Court of Appeals debunked petitioner's arguments and affirmed the
Decision of the RTC with the modification that Respondent Nenita Lee Gruenberg was ordered to
refund P100,000 to petitioner, the amount remitted as "downpayment" or "earnest money."
Hence, this petition before us.8

The Issues

Before this Court, petitioner raises the following issues:

I. Whether or not the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate

fiction is applicable in the instant case

II. Whether or not the appellate court may consider matters which
the parties failed to raise in the lower court

III. Whether or not there is a valid and enforceable contract

between the petitioner and the respondent corporation

IV. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there
is a valid correction/substitution of answer in the transcript of
stenographic note[s].

V. Whether or not respondents are liable for damages and

attorney's fees 9

The Court synthesized the foregoing and will thus discuss them seriatim as follows:
 1. Was there a valid contract of sale between petitioner and
Motorich?

2. May the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction be

applied to Motorich?

3. Is the alleged alteration of Gruenberg's testimony as recorded

in the transcript of stenographic notes material to the disposition
of this case?

4. Are respondents liable for damages and attorney's fees?

The Court's Ruling

The petition is devoid of merit.

First Issue: Validity of Agreement

Petitioner San Juan Structural and Steel Fabricators, Inc. alleges that on February 14, 1989, it
entered through its president, Andres Co, into the disputed Agreement with Respondent Motorich
Sales Corporation, which was in turn allegedly represented by its treasurer, Nenita Lee
Gruenberg. Petitioner insists that "[w]hen Gruenberg and Co affixed their signatures on the
contract they both consented to be bound by the terms thereof." Ergo, petitioner contends that
the contract is binding on the two corporations. We do not agree.

True, Gruenberg and Co signed on February 14, 1989, the Agreement, according to which a lot
owned by Motorich Sales Corporation was purportedly sold. Such contract, however, cannot bind
Motorich, because it never authorized or ratified such sale.

A corporation is a juridical person separate and distinct from its stockholders or members.
Accordingly, the property of the corporation is not the property of its stockholders or members
and may not be sold by the stockholders or members without express authorization from the
corporation's board of directors.   Section 23 of BP 68, otherwise known as the Corporation
10

Code of the Philippines, provides;

Sec. 23. The Board of Directors or Trustees. — Unless otherwise provided in this

Code, the corporate powers of all corporations formed under this Code shall be
exercised, all business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled
and held by the board of directors or trustees to be elected from among the
holders of stocks, or where there is no stock, from among the members of the
corporation, who shall hold office for one (1) year and until their successors are
elected and qualified.

Indubitably, a corporation may act only through its board of directors or, when authorized either
by its bylaws or by its board resolution, through its officers or agents in the normal course of
business. The general principles of agency govern the relation between the corporation and its
officers or agents, subject to the articles of incorporation, bylaws, or relevant provisions of
law.   Thus, this Court has held that "a corporate officer or agent may represent and bind the
11

corporation in transactions with third persons to the extent that the authority to do so has been
conferred upon him, and this includes powers which have been intentionally conferred, and also
such powers as, in the usual course of the particular business, are incidental to, or may be
implied from, the powers intentionally conferred, powers added by custom and usage, as usually
pertaining to the particular officer or agent, and such apparent powers as the corporation has
caused persons dealing with the officer or agent to believe that it has conferred."  12
Furthermore, the Court has also recognized the rule that "persons dealing with an assumed
agent, whether the assumed agency be a general or special one 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 (Harry Keeler v. Rodriguez, 4 Phil. 19)."   Unless duly authorized, a treasurer, whose
13

powers are limited, cannot bind the corporation in a sale of its assets.  14

In the case at bar, Respondent Motorich categorically denies that it ever authorized Nenita
Gruenberg, its treasurer, to sell the subject parcel of land.   Consequently, petitioner had the
15

burden of proving that Nenita Gruenberg was in fact authorized to represent and bind Motorich in
the transaction. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. Its offer of evidence before the trial
court contained no proof of such authority.   It has not shown any provision of said respondent's
16

articles of incorporation, bylaws or board resolution to prove that Nenita Gruenberg possessed
such power.

That Nenita Gruenberg is the treasurer of Motorich does not free petitioner from the responsibility
of ascertaining the extent of her authority to represent the corporation. Petitioner cannot assume
that she, by virtue of her position, was authorized to sell the property of the corporation. Selling is
obviously foreign to a corporate treasurer's function, which generally has been described as "to
receive and keep the funds of the corporation, and to disburse them in accordance with the
authority given him by the board or the properly authorized officers."  17

Neither was such real estate sale shown to be a normal business activity of Motorich. The
primary purpose of Motorich is marketing, distribution, export and import in relation to a general
merchandising business.  Unmistakably, its treasurer is not cloaked with actual or apparent
18

authority to buy or sell real property, an activity which falls way beyond the scope of her general
authority.

Art. 1874 and 1878 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:

Art. 1874. When a 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.

Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney are necessary in the following case:

x x x           x x x          x x x

(5) To enter any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted

or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration;

xxx xxx xxx.

Petitioner further contends that Respondent Motorich has ratified said contract of sale because of
its "acceptance of benefits," as evidenced by the receipt issued by Respondent
Gruenberg.   Petitioner is clutching at straws.
19

As a general rule, the acts of corporate officers within the scope of their authority are binding on
the corporation. But when these officers exceed their authority, their actions "cannot bind the
corporation, unless it has ratified such acts or is estopped from disclaiming them."  20

In this case, there is a clear absence of proof that Motorich ever authorized Nenita Gruenberg, or
made it appear to any third person that she had the authority, to sell its land or to receive the
earnest money. Neither was there any proof that Motorich ratified, expressly or impliedly, the
contract. Petitioner rests its argument on the receipt which, however, does not prove the fact of
ratification. The document is a hand-written one, not a corporate receipt, and it bears only Nenita
Gruenberg's signature. Certainly, this document alone does not prove that her acts were
authorized or ratified by Motorich.

Art. 1318 of the Civil Code lists the requisites of a valid and perfected contract: "(1) consent of
the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) cause of
the obligation which is established." As found by the trial court   and affirmed by the Court of
21

Appeals,   there is no evidence that Gruenberg was authorized to enter into the contract of sale,
22

or that the said contract was ratified by Motorich. This factual finding of the two courts is binding
on this Court.   As the consent of the seller was not obtained, no contract to bind the obligor was
23

perfected. Therefore, there can be no valid contract of sale between petitioner and Motorich.

Because Motorich had never given a written authorization to Respondent Gruenberg to sell its
parcel of land, we hold that the February 14, 1989 Agreement entered into by the latter with
petitioner is void under Article 1874 of the Civil Code. Being inexistent and void from the
beginning, said contract cannot be ratified.  24

Second Issue:
Piercing the Corporate Veil Not Justified

Petitioner also argues that the veil of corporate fiction of Motorich should be pierced, because the
latter is a close corporation. Since "Spouses Reynaldo L. Gruenberg and Nenita R. Gruenberg
owned all or almost all or 99.866% to be accurate, of the subscribed capital stock"   of Motorich,
25

petitioner argues that Gruenberg needed no authorization from the board to enter into the subject
contract.   It adds that, being solely owned by the Spouses Gruenberg, the company can treated
26

as a close corporation which can be bound by the acts of its principal stockholder who needs no
specific authority. The Court is not persuaded.

First, petitioner itself concedes having raised the issue belatedly,   not having done so during the
27

trial, but only when it filed its sur-rejoinder before the Court of Appeals.   Thus, this Court cannot
28

entertain said issue at this late stage of the proceedings. It is well-settled the points of law,
theories and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily
will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal.   Allowing petitioner to change horses in midstream, as it were, is to run roughshod over
29

the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.

Second, even if the above mentioned argument were to be addressed at this time, the Court still
finds no reason to uphold it. True, one of the advantages of a corporate form of business
organization is the limitation of an investor's liability to the amount of the investment.   This
30

feature flows from the legal theory that a corporate entity is separate and distinct from its
stockholders. However, the statutorily granted privilege of a corporate veil may be used only for
legitimate purposes.   On equitable considerations, the veil can be disregarded when it is utilized
31

as a shield to commit fraud, illegality or inequity; defeat public convenience; confuse legitimate
issues; or serve as a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person or an instrumentality,
agency or adjunct of another corporation.  32

Thus, the Court has consistently ruled that "[w]hen the fiction is used as a means of perpetrating
a fraud or an illegal act or as vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation, the circumvention
of statutes, the achievement or perfection of a monopoly or generally the perpetration of knavery
or crime, the veil with which the law covers and isolates the corporation from the members or
stockholders who compose it will be lifted to allow for its consideration merely as an aggregation
of individuals."  33

We stress that the corporate fiction should be set aside when it becomes a shield against liability
for fraud, illegality or inequity committed on third persons. The question of piercing the veil of
corporate fiction is essentially, then, a matter of proof. In the present case, however, the Court
finds no reason to pierce the corporate veil of Respondent Motorich. Petitioner utterly failed to
establish that said corporation was formed, or that it is operated, for the purpose of shielding any
alleged fraudulent or illegal activities of its officers or stockholders; or that the said veil was used
to conceal fraud, illegality or inequity at the expense of third persons like petitioner.

Petitioner claims that Motorich is a close corporation. We rule that it is not. Section 96 of the
Corporation Code defines a close corporation as follows:

Sec. 96. Definition and Applicability of Title. — A close corporation, within the
meaning of this Code, is one whose articles of incorporation provide that: (1) All
of the corporation's issued stock of all classes, exclusive of treasury shares, shall
be held of record by not more than a specified number of persons, not exceeding
twenty (20); (2) All of the issued stock of all classes shall be subject to one or
more specified restrictions on transfer permitted by this Title; and (3) The
corporation shall not list in any stock exchange or make any public offering of any
of its stock of any class. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a corporation shall be
deemed not a close corporation when at least two-thirds (2/3) of its voting stock
or voting rights is owned or controlled by another corporation which is not a close
corporation within the meaning of this Code. . . . .

The articles of incorporation   of Motorich Sales Corporation does not contain any provision
34

stating that (1) the number of stockholders shall not exceed 20, or (2) a preemption of shares is
restricted in favor of any stockholder or of the corporation, or (3) listing its stocks in any stock
exchange or making a public offering of such stocks is prohibited. From its articles, it is clear that
Respondent Motorich is not a close corporation.   Motorich does not become one either, just
35

because Spouses Reynaldo and Nenita Gruenberg owned 99.866% of its subscribed capital
stock. The "[m]ere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation of all or capital
stock of a corporation is not of itself sufficient ground for disregarding the separate corporate
personalities."   So, too, a narrow distribution of ownership does not, by itself, make a close
36

corporation.

Petitioner cites Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals   wherein the Court ruled
37

that ". . . petitioner corporation is classified as a close corporation and, consequently, a board
resolution authorizing the sale or mortgage of the subject property is not necessary to bind the
corporation for the action of its president."   But the factual milieu in Dulay is not on all fours with
38

the present case. In Dulay, the sale of real property was contracted by the president of a close
corporation with the knowledge and acquiescence of its board of directors.   In the present case,
39

Motorich is not a close corporation, as previously discussed, and the agreement was entered into
by the corporate treasurer without the knowledge of the board of directors.

The Court is not unaware that there are exceptional cases where "an action by a director, who
singly is the controlling stockholder, may be considered as a binding corporate act and a board
action as nothing more than a mere formality."   The present case, however, is not one of them.
40

As stated by petitioner, Spouses Reynaldo and Nenita Gruenberg own "almost 99.866%" of
Respondent Motorich.  Since Nenita is not the sole controlling stockholder of Motorich, the
41

aforementioned exception does not apply. Granting arguendo that the corporate veil of Motorich
is to be disregarded, the subject parcel of land would then be treated as conjugal property of
Spouses Gruenberg, because the same was acquired during their marriage. There being no
indication that said spouses, who appear to have been married before the effectivity of the
Family Code, have agreed to a different property regime, their property relations would be
governed by conjugal partnership of gains.   As a consequence, Nenita Gruenberg could not
42

have effected a sale of the subject lot because "[t]here is no co-ownership between the spouses
in the properties of the conjugal partnership of gains. Hence, neither spouse can alienate in favor
of another his or interest in the partnership or in any property belonging to it; neither spouse can
ask for a partition of the properties before the partnership has been legally dissolved."  43
Assuming further, for the sake of argument, that the spouses' property regime is the absolute
community of property, the sale would still be invalid. Under this regime, "alienation of community
property must have the written consent of the other spouse or he authority of the court without
which the disposition or encumbrance is void."   Both requirements are manifestly absent in the
44

instant case.

Third Issue: Challenged Portion of TSN Immaterial

Petitioner calls our attention to the following excerpt of the transcript of stenographic notes
(TSN):

Q Did you ever represent to Mr. Co that you were authorized by

the corporation to sell the property?

A Yes, sir.  45

Petitioner claims that the answer "Yes" was crossed out, and, in its place was written a "No" with
an initial scribbled above it.   This, however, is insufficient to prove that Nenita Gruenberg was
46

authorized to represent Respondent Motorich in the sale of its immovable property. Said excerpt
be understood in the context of her whole testimony. During her cross-examination. Respondent
Gruenberg testified:

Q So, you signed in your capacity as the treasurer?

[A] Yes, sir.

Q Even then you kn[e]w all along that you [were] not authorized?

A Yes, sir.

Q You stated on direct examination that you did not represent that
you were authorized to sell the property?

A Yes, sir.

Q But you also did not say that you were not authorized to sell the
property, you did not tell that to Mr. Co, is that correct?

A That was not asked of me.

Q Yes, just answer it.

A I just told them that I was the treasurer of the corporation and it
[was] also the president who [was] also authorized to sign on
behalf of the corporation.

Q You did not say that you were not authorized nor did you say
that you were authorized?

A Mr. Co was very interested to purchase the property and he

offered to put up a P100,000.00 earnest money at that time. That
was our first meeting. 47
Clearly then, Nenita Gruenberg did not testify that Motorich had authorized her to sell its
property. On the other hand, her testimony demonstrates that the president of Petitioner
Corporation, in his great desire to buy the property, threw caution to the wind by offering and
paying the earnest money without first verifying Gruenberg's authority to sell the lot.

Fourth Issue:
Damages and Attorney's Fees

Finally, petitioner prays for damages and attorney's fees, alleging that "[i]n an utter display of
malice and bad faith, respondents attempted and succeeded in impressing on the trial court and
[the] Court of Appeals that Gruenberg did not represent herself as authorized by Respondent
Motorich despite the receipt issued by the former specifically indicating that she was signing on
behalf of Motorich Sales Corporation. Respondent Motorich likewise acted in bad faith when it
claimed it did not authorize Respondent Gruenberg and that the contract [was] not binding,
[insofar] as it [was] concerned, despite receipt and enjoyment of the proceeds of Gruenberg's
act."   Assuming that Respondent Motorich was not a party to the alleged fraud, petitioner
48

maintains that Respondent Gruenberg should be held liable because she "acted fraudulently and
in bad faith [in] representing herself as duly authorized by [R]espondent [C]orporation."  49

As already stated, we sustain the findings of both the trial and the appellate courts that the
foregoing allegations lack factual bases. Hence, an award of damages or attorney's fees cannot
be justified. The amount paid as "earnest money" was not proven to have redounded to the
benefit of Respondent Motorich. Petitioner claims that said amount was deposited to the account
of Respondent Motorich, because "it was deposited with the account of Aren Commercial c/o
Motorich Sales Corporation."   Respondent Gruenberg, however, disputes the allegations of
50

petitioner. She testified as follows:

Q You voluntarily accepted the P100,000.00, as a matter of fact,

that was encashed, the check was encashed.

A Yes. sir, the check was paid in my name and I deposit[ed] it.

Q In your account?

A Yes, sir. 51

In any event, Gruenberg offered to return the amount to petitioner ". . . since the sale did
not push through."  52

Moreover, we note that Andres Co is not a neophyte in the world of corporate business. He has
been the president of Petitioner Corporation for more than ten years and has also served as chief
executive of two other corporate entities.   Co cannot feign ignorance of the scope of the
53

authority of a corporate treasurer such as Gruenberg. Neither can he be oblivious to his duty to
ascertain the scope of Gruenberg's authorization to enter into a contract to sell a parcel of land
belonging to Motorich.

Indeed, petitioner's claim of fraud and bad faith is unsubstantiated and fails to persuade the
Court. Indubitably, petitioner appears to be the victim of its own officer's negligence in entering
into a contract with and paying an unauthorized officer of another corporation.

As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, however, Nenita Gruenberg should be ordered to
return to petitioner the amount she received as earnest money, as "no one shall enrich himself at
the expense of another."   a principle embodied in Article 2154 of Civil Code.   Although there
54 55

was no binding relation between them, petitioner paid Gruenberg on the mistaken belief that she
had the authority to sell the property of Motorich.   Article 2155 of Civil Code provides that
56
"[p]ayment by reason of a mistake in the contruction or application of a difficult question of law
may come within the scope of the preceding article."

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.