Short answer. Under Article 1874, a sale of land by an agent lacking written authority is void, not merely voidable or unenforceable. Because the law itself declares it void, the transaction produces no legal effect from the start, and void contracts generally cannot be cured by ratification — the owner would need to execute an entirely new, valid sale instead.
What the law says
the sale shall be void
Civil Code, Article 1874 — Sale of Land Through an Agent. Read the full provision →
What the law says
any interest therein
Civil Code, Article 1874 — Sale of Land Through an Agent. Read the full provision →
Why the law says void, not just unenforceable
Article 1874 is unusually blunt among the agency provisions: most defects in an agent's authority make a contract merely unenforceable or voidable, but this one states outright that the sale "shall be void." That phrasing matters because voidness carries the harshest consequence in Philippine contract law — the transaction is treated as if it never happened, and no amount of later conduct converts it into a binding one.
Ratification cures a voidable act, not a void one
Ratification is the tool a principal uses to adopt an agent's unauthorized act after the fact, and it works for contracts that are merely voidable or unenforceable for lack of authority. A void contract is different: since it produced no legal effect from the moment it was signed, there is nothing left for the principal to "adopt." A land sale made without the written authority Article 1874 demands is generally treated as falling outside the reach of ratification for this reason.
What actually fixes the situation
The practical remedy is not to ratify the earlier sale but to execute a fresh, valid transaction — either a new deed signed directly by the landowner, or a new sale by the same agent once armed with the written authority the law requires. Either route creates a new, enforceable transfer rather than trying to breathe life into the earlier void one.
What counts as sufficient written authority
The writing does not need to be a notarized special power of attorney in every case, but it must clearly show the principal's intent to authorize that specific agent to sell that specific property, since Article 1874 extends to "any interest" in land, not just outright sales — this covers mortgages, leases beyond a year, and other dispositions of land carried out through a representative.
This does not affect authority to merely negotiate
Article 1874 targets the power to sell or convey an interest in land, not the earlier step of merely showing the property or negotiating price on the owner's behalf, which does not by itself require any special writing. Confusion between negotiating and consummating the sale is a common source of disputes when a supposed agent claims that preliminary talks bound the landowner to a completed transaction.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Reman Recio vs. Heirs of Spouses Aguego and Maria Altamirano, namely Alejandro, et al., all surnamed Altamirano, et al, G.R. No. 182349, July 24, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Richard E. Unchuan, G.R. No. 182537, June 1, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Joselina Alcantara and Antonio Alcantara, et al. vs. Brigida L. Nido, as attorney-in-fact of Revelen Srivastava, G.R. No. 165133, April 19, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Purita A. Pahud, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 160346, August 25, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1874 — Sale of Land Through an Agent
- Civil Code, Article 1878 — Acts Requiring a Special Power of Attorney