Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
112796
March 5, 1998
1.
Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Catalina Jacob dated October 7, 1977 in
favor of Eduardo B. Espaol covering the residential house located at the premises
(Exh. "4").
2.
Deed of Assignment over Lot 8W executed by Catalina Jacob in favor of
Eduardo Espaol dated September 30, 1980 (Exh. "5"); and
3.
Deed of Assignment executed by Eduardo B. Espaol over Lot 8W and a
residential house thereon in favor of defendant-appellant dated October 2, 1982
(Exh. "6").
After trial, the lower court decided in favor of plaintiff-appellee and against
defendant-appellant, rationalizing that the version of the former is more credible
than that of the latter. According to the lower court:
From the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties[,] it appears that
the plaintiff- has a better right over the property, subject matter of the case. The
version of the plaintiff is more credible than that of the defendant. The theory of the
plaintiff is that the house and lot belong to him by virtue of the Deed of Donation in
his favor executed by his grandmother Mrs. Jacob Vda. de Reyes, the real awardee
of the lot in question. The defendant's theory is that he is the owner thereof
because he bought the house and lot from Eduardo Espaol, after the latter had
shown and given to him Exhibits 1, 4 and 5. He admitted that he signed the Deed of
Assignment in favor of Eduardo Espaol on September 30, 1980, but did not see
awardee Catalina Jacob Vda. de Reyes signed [sic] it. In fact, the acknowledgement
in Exhibit "5" shows that the assignor/awardee did not appear before the notary
public. It may be noted that on said date, the original awardee of the lot was no
longer in the Philippines, as both parties admitted that she had not come back to
the Philippines since 1977. (Exhs. K, K-1). Defendant, claiming to be the owner of
the lot, unbelievably did not take any action to have the said house and lot be
registered or had them declared in his own name. Even his Exhibit 7 was not mailed
or served to the addressee. Such attitude and laxity is very unnatural for a
buyer/owner of a property, in stark contrast of [sic] the interest shown by the
plaintiff who saw to it that the lot was removed from the delinquent list for nonpayment of installments and taxes due thereto .
Main Issue:
ROSENSTOCK VS BURKE
Facts:
Defendant Edwin Burke owned a motor yacht, known as Bronzewing, which
he acquired in Australia in 1920. He wanted to sell the yacht and after several
months plaintiff H. W. Elser, at the beginning of the year 1922, began negotiations
with the defendant for the purchase of it. The plan of the plaintiff was to organize a
yacht club and sell it afterwards the yacht for P120,000, of which P20,000 was to be
retained by him as commission and the remaining P100,000 to be paid to the
defendant. To be able to sell the yacht, he wanted to make a voyage on board the
yacht with business men so that he could make a sale to them. But the yacht
needed some repairs which in turn, plaintiff paid for because defendant had no
budget for that. It has been stipulated that the plaintiff was not to pay anything for
the use of the yacht. Because of the said repairs, plaintiff loaned money from the
Asia Banking Corporation. Since it amounted to its maximum amount already, the
bank could no longer give loans to plaintiff. Defendant now gave plaintiff the option
of sale to plaintiff amounting to P80,000; P5,000 each month during the first six
months and P10,000 thereafter until full payment of the price. Plaintiff in turn
agreed by letter. Defendant demanded the plaintiff for performance after he
accepted the offer of plaintiff for the purchase of the yacht. However, plaintiff now
brings action to recover the sum of money he used for repairs of the yacht.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a valid contract of sale which is binding against
plaintiff as used in the letter of offer which was accepted by the defendant.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that it was not a valid contract of sale. The words
used by plaintiff could not be interpreted as a definite offer to purchase the yacht,
but simply a position to deliberate whether or not he would purchase the yacht. It
was but a mere invitation to a proposal being made to him, which might be
accepted by him or not. He used such words as, I am in position and am willing to
entertain the purchase of the yacht. not I want to buy the yacht. Furthermore,
the plaintiff wanted to organize a yacht club and the only thing he wanted from
defendant was he sells it so that he could profit from it if he re-sells it. The letter of
the plaintiff not containing a definite offer but a mere invitation to an offer being
made to him. Plaintiff is bound to pay the amount of the repairs of the yacht in
exchange for the use thereof.
amount was rejected by Mrs. Cojuangco, who told she had not had any agreement
with his client. On January 28, 1944, Atty. Lontok sent a letter through a messenger
to Mrs. Cojuangco's counsel, Atty. Antonio Lucero, in Manila, enclosing the same
money orders for P800 and P708.30 in paper money. This tender was also refused.
On January 7, 1944, Attorney Lontok came to this court with a motion to order the
appellee to comply with the offer she had made in her brief. That motion was
"rejected" in a resolution dated February 18, 1944, "for having been filed after the
entry of judgment."
The suit at bar is a reiteration of the motion just mentioned. Because of their
identity, our resolution denying the motion to compel Cojuangco to live up to her
commitment was set up as a bar to the present action. The plea was overruled by
the lower court as not well taken. The lower court also declared that "the statement
contained in the brief of the defendant herein in G.R. No. 48980 and footnoted in
the decision of the Supreme Court (was) a promise on the part of the defendant
herein to resell the land in question to the plaintiff herein." Nevertheless it found
that "the time for him (Batagan) to accept the promise was from the date of the
brief of the defendant herein in G.R. No. 48980 until the entry of judgment," and
that the acceptance having been made after the judgment had been rendered, it
came too late.
The question of the conclusiveness of our resolution referred to is not pressed in this
appeal. Apparently abandoning her plea in this regard, the appellee makes no
reference in her brief to her former contention that this action is res adjudicata. And
she seems to take for granted that the signification in her brief of her willingness to
allow the repurchase of the property constituted a formal offer that could have
served as basis for the creation of legal relations.
The sole question on which the parties have joined issue in this appeal relates to
whether the appellee's offer has been duly accepted by the appellant. We are of the
opinion that the acceptance was tardy. An offer of compromise settlement must be
accepted within a reasonable time. (15 C.J.S., section 7.) And acceptance or
rejection of an offer of compromise may be inferred from circumstances. (Id.) The
appellant's failure to act on the offer before the judgment was entered was an
implied rejection of said offer. In pushing the appeal to final conclusion the appellant
made it clear that he was not interested in his creditor's liberal concession. A
compromise has for its purpose the avoidance or termination of a law suit. (Article
1809, Civil Code.) With the rendition of judgment the reason which induced the
appellee to make her proposition ceased to exist.
Again, acceptance in order to conclude the agreement must in every respect meet
and correspond with the terms and conditions of the offer. (17 C.J.S., 378.) Granting
that the appellant acted on time, payment of P800 fell short of the appellee's
requirement. The appellee wanted P1,508.28 in cash. This was the least she was
entitled to, being the amount which the court below had found to be due her. In her
proposition she did not even include any interest.
The substantial variance between the amount in the offer and the amount tendered
not only made the purported acceptance inoperative but "put an end to the
negotiations without forming a contract unless the party making the offer agreed to
the suggested modification." (17 C.J.S., 383.) Otherwise, as the trial judge aptly
observed, "promisors would be tied to their promises indefinitely and would not be
able to dispose of the property involved" in the promise or offer. In addition, the
promisor would be placed in a position where he would always lose without anything
to gain. The promisee could wait until judgment is rendered and accepted the offer
of compromise if the judgment happened to be more onerous to him.
Appellant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to make the finding that
there was a new agreement entered into between the appellant and the appellee
whereby the appellee would allow appellant to make a down payment of P800 and
to pay the balance afterward.
This case was submitted and decided on the pleadings. No evidence was
introduced. This assignment of error involves a question of fact which the plaintiff
should have proven by competent evidence. His only reliance is on Exhibit 4 which
is Attorney Lontok's letter is self-serving and is absolutely incompetent as proof of
the alleged agreement. The reference in Exhibit 4 to an alleged understanding
between the parties might have been made in contemplation of this suit. The
argument which the appellant, who came to Manila purposely to see her, would
dare send her such amount without any agreement," tends to confirm this
possibility. It is of interest to know that there is not the slightest intimation of such
agreement in the complaint.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed with costs against the appellant.
G.R. No. 16530
March 31, 1922
MAMERTO LAUDICO and FRED M. HARDEN, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
MANUEL ARIAS RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
On February 5, 1919, the defendant, Vicente Arias, who, with his
codefendants, owned the building Nos. 205 to 221 on Carriedo Street, on his behalf
and that of his coowners, wrote a letter to the plaintiff, Mamerto Laudico, giving him
an option to lease the building to a third person, and transmitting to him for that
purpose a tentative contract in writing containing the conditions upon which the
proposed lease should be made. Later Mr. Laudico presented his coplaintiff, Mr. Fred.
M. Harden, as the party desiring to lease the building. On one hand, other
conditions were added to those originally contained in the tentative contract, and,
on the other, counter-propositions were made and explanations requested on
certain points in order to make them clear. These negotiations were carried on by
correspondence and verbally at interviews held with Mr. Vicente Arias, no definite
agreement having been arrived at until the plaintiff, Mr. Laudico, finally wrote a
letter to Mr. Arias on March 6, 1919, advising him that all his propositions, as
amended and supplemented, were accepted. It is admitted that this letter was
received by Mr. Arias by special delivery at 2.53 p.m. of that day. On that same day,
at 11.25 in the morning, Mr. Arias had, in turn, written a letter to the plaintiff, Mr.
Laudico, withdrawing the offer to lease the building.
The chief prayer of the plaintiff in this action is that the defendants be compelled to
execute the contract of lease of the building in question. It thus results that when
Arias sent his letter of withdrawal to Laudico, he had not yet received the letter of
acceptance, and when it reached him, he had already sent his letter of withdrawal.
Under these facts we believe that no contract was perfected between the plaintiffs
and the defendants.
The parties agree that the circumstances under which that offer was made were
such that the offer could be withdrawn at any time before acceptance.
Under article 1262, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, an acceptance by letter does not
have any effect until it comes to the knowledge of the offerer. Therefore, before he
learns of the acceptance, the latter is not yet bound by it and can still withdraw the
offer. Consequently, when Mr. Arias wrote Mr. Laudico, withdrawing the offer, he had
the right to do so, inasmuch as he had not yet receive notice of the acceptance. And
when the notice of the acceptance was received by Mr. Arias, it no longer had any
effect, as the offer was not then in existence, the same having already been
withdrawn. There was no meeting of the minds, through offer and acceptance,
which is the essence of the contract. While there was an offer, there was no
acceptance, and when the latter was made and could have a binding effect, the
offer was then lacking. Though both the offer and the acceptance existed, they did
not meet to give birth to a contract.
Our attention has been called to a doctrine laid down in some decisions to the effect
that ordinarily notice of the revocation of an offer must be given to avoid an
acceptance which may convert in into a binding contract, and that no such notice
can be deemed to have been given to the person to whom the offer was made
unless the revocation was in fact brought home to his knowledge.
This, however, has no application in the instant case, because when Arias received
the letter of acceptance, his letter of revocation had already been received. The
latter was sent through a messenger at 11.25 in the morning directly to the office of
Laudico and should have been received immediately on that same morning, or at
least, before Arias received the letter of acceptance. On this point we do not give
any credence to the testimony of Laudico that he received this letter of revocation
at 3.30 in the afternoon of that day. Laudico is interested in destroying the effect of
this revocation so that the acceptance may be valid, which is the principal ground of
his complaint.
But even supposing Laudico's testimony to be true, still the doctrine invoked has no
application here. With regard to contracts between absent persons there are two
principal theories, to wit, one holding that an acceptance by letter of an offer has no
effect until it comes to the knowledge of the offerer, and the other maintaining that
it is effective from the time the letter is sent.
The Civil Code, in paragraph 2 of article 1262, has adopted the first theory and,
according to its most eminent commentators, it means that, before the acceptance
is known, the offer can be revoked, it not being necessary, in order for the
revocation to have the effect of impeding the perfection of the contract, that it be
known by the acceptant. Q. Mucius Scaevola says apropros: "To our mind, the power
to revoke is implied in the criterion that no contract exists until the acceptance is
known. As the tie or bond springs from the meeting or concurrence of the minds,
since up to that moment there exists only a unilateral act, it is evident that he who
makes it must have the power to revoke it by withdrawing his proposition, although
with the obligation to pay such damages as may have been sustained by the person
or persons to whom the offer was made and by whom it was accepted, if he in turn
failed to give them notice of the withdrawal of the offer. This view is confirmed by
the provision of article 1257, paragraph 2, concerning the case where a stipulation
is made in favor of a third person, which provision authorizes the contracting parties
to revoke the stipulation before the notice of its acceptance. That case is quite
similar to that under comment, as said stipulation in favor of a third person (who,
for the very reason of being a third person, is not a contracting party) is tantamount
to an offer made by the makers of the contract which may or may not be accepted
by him, and which does not have any effect until the obligor is notified, and may,
before it is accepted, be revoked by those who have made it; therefore, the case
being similar, the same rule applies."
Under the second theory, the doctrine invoked by the plaintiffs is sound, because if
the sending of the letter of acceptance in itself really perfects the contract, the
revocation of the offer, in order to prevent it, must be known to the acceptor. But
this consideration has no place in the first theory under which the forwarding of the
letter of acceptance, in itself, does not have any effect until the acceptance is
known by the person who has made the offer.
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the defendants are absolved from the
complaint, without special finding as to costs. So ordered.
C. TCT No.117773 (17,232 sq.ms.) - Sold to Rizalina Pedrosa under Deed of Absolute
Sale dated June 4, 1984 for the price of P150,000.00
The expenses for the subdivision of lots covered by TCT No. 111059 and TCT No.
117772 were shouldered by petitioner who likewise negotiated the abovementioned sale transactions. The properties covered by TCT Nos. T-117774 to
117776 are still registered in the name of respondent bank.6
In a letter addressed to respondent bank dated July 25, 1989, petitioner expressed
his willingness to pay the amount of P600,000.00 in full, as balance of the
repurchase price, and requested respondent bank to release to him the remaining
parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 111058 and T-154658 ("subject properties").7
Respondent bank however, turned down his request. This prompted petitioner to
cause the annotation of an adverse claim on the said titles on September 18,
1989.8
Prior to the annotation of the adverse claim, on August 24, 1989, the property
covered by TCT No. 154658 was sold by respondent bank to respondent spouses
Phillip and Thelma Rodriguez, without informing the petitioner. On October 6, 1989,
again without petitioner's knowledge, respondent bank sold the property covered by
TCT No T-111058 to respondents Phillip and Thelma Rodriguez, Catherine M. Zuiga,
Reynold M. Zuiga and Jeannette M. Zuiga.9
On December 27, 1989, petitioner filed an action for specific performance and
damages in the RTC against the respondent bank. As principal relief, petitioner
sought in his original complaint the reconveyance of the subject properties after his
payment of P600,000.00.10 Respondent bank filed its Answer denying the
allegations of petitioner and asserting that it was merely exercising its right as
owner of the subject properties when the same were sold to third parties.
For failure of respondent bank to appear during the pre-trial conference, it was
declared as in default and petitioner was allowed to present his evidence ex parte
on the same date (September 3, 1990). Petitioner simultaneously filed an "Ex-Parte
Consignation" tendering the amount of P235,000.00 as balance of the repurchase
price.11 On September 7, 1990, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of
petitioner. Said decision, as well as the order of default, were subsequently set aside
by the trial court upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration by the respondent
bank.12
In its Order dated November 19, 1990, the trial court granted the motion for
intervention filed by respondents Phillip and Thelma Rodriguez, Catherine Zuiga,
Reynold Zuiga and Jeannette Zuiga. Said intervenors asserted their status as
innocent purchasers for value who had no notice or knowledge of the claim or
interest of petitioner when they bought the properties already registered in the
name of respondent bank. Aside from a counterclaim for damages against the
petitioner, intervenors also prayed that in the event respondent bank is ordered to
reconvey the properties, respondent bank should be adjudged liable to the
intervenors and return all amounts paid to it.13
virtue of the return of their deposit and whether there was a cancellation of your
agreement with them.
In the meantime, please consider the 15-day period for us to pay the amount of
P320,000.00 imposed by your bank suspended until such time that the legal
problem with the lot occupants is settled.
To convince Robern that it has no existing contract with PELA, Al-Amanah furnished
it with copies of the Head Offices rejection letter of PELAs bid, the demand letters
to vacate, and the proof of consignment of PELAs P150,000.00 deposit to the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City that PELA refused to withdraw.19
Thereafter, on February 2, 1994, it informed Robern that should the latter fail to pay
the balance by February 9, 1994, its P80,000.00 deposit will be forfeited and the lot
shall be up for sale to other prospective buyers.20 Meanwhile, Al-Amanah requested
for assistance for the removal of the houses not only from the Office of the City
Engineer of Davao City21 but also from Mayor Rodrigo Duterte. Gaining a favorable
legal opinion from the City Legal Officer, the matter was indorsed to the Chief of
Demolition Consensus of the Department of Public Services for action.22
On March 4, 1994, Robern paid the balance of the purchase price.23 The Deed of
Sale24 over the realty was executed on April 6, 1994 and TCT No. T-21298325 was
issued in Roberns name the following day.
A week later, PELA consigned P150,000.00 in the RTC of Davao City.26 Then on April
14, 1994, it wrote27 Al-Amanah asking the latter to withdraw the amount
consigned. Part of the letter states:
xxxx
On March 21, 1994 (almost one month before the April 15, 1994 deadline) we came
to your bank to remit the balance and full payment [for] the abovementioned lot.
[Inasmuch] as you refuse[d] to accept the payment, we have decided to deposit the
amount consigned to your bank.
In our dialogue at your office in 1993, we have agreed that documents will be
processed as soon as we pay the P150,000.00 initial deposit. [Inasmuch] as we have
not only paid the deposit but have also made full payment of the account, kindly
facilitate processing of the documents to finalize transaction.
We have not been remiss in doing our part of the transaction; please do your share.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
For the occupants/claimants
T.C.T. No. T-13891428
Three months later, as its members were already facing eviction and possible
demolition of their houses, and in order to protect their rights as vendees, PELA filed
a suit for Annulment and Cancellation of Void Deed of Sale29 against Al-Amanah, its
Director Engr. Farouk Carpizo (Engr. Carpizo), OIC Dalig, Robern, and Roberns
President and General Manager, petitioner Rodolfo Bernardo (Bernardo) before the
RTC of Davao City. It insisted that as early as March 1993 it has a perfected contract
of sale with Al-Amanah. However, in an apparent act of bad faith and in cahoots
with Robern, Al-Amanah proceeded with the sale of the lot despite the prior sale to
PELA.
Incidentally, the trial court granted PELAs prayer for a temporary restraining order.
Subsequently, it issued on August 12, 1994 an Order31 finding merit in the issuance
of the writ of preliminary injunction, inter alia. The RTCs grant of injunctive relief
was affirmed by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 3523832 when the factual and legal bases
for its issuance were questioned before the appellate court.
The respondents in the annulment case filed their respective Answers.33 Al-Amanah
and Engr. Carpizo claimed that the bank has every right to sell its lot to any
interested buyer with the best offer and thus they chose Robern. They clarified that
the P150,000.00 PELA handed to them is not part of the payment but merely a
deposit in connection with its offer. They asserted that PELA was properly apprised
that its offer to buy was subject to the approval of Al-Amanahs Head Office. They
stressed that Al-Amanah never entered into a sale with PELA for there was no
perfected agreement as to the price since the Head Office rejected
PELAs offer.
For their part, Robern and Bernardo asserted the corporations standing as a
purchaser in good faith and for value in the sale of the property, having relied on
the clean title of Al-Amanah. They also alleged that the purported sale to PELA is
violative of the Statute of Frauds34 as there is no written agreement covering the
same.
Respondents Arguments
PELA, on the other hand, claims that petitioners are not the proper parties who can
assail the contract of sale between it and the bank. It likewise argues that the
Petition should be dismissed because the petitioners failed to attach the material
portions of the records that would support its allegations, as required by Section 4,
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.43
Aside from echoing the finding of the CA that Al-Amanah has a perfected contract of
sale with PELA, the latter further invokes the reasoning of the RTC and the CA (CAG.R. SP No. 35238) in finding merit in the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction, that is, that there was an apparent perfection of contract (of sale)
between the Bank and PELA.44 Furthermore, PELA claims that Al-Amanah accepted
its offered price and the P150,000.00, thus barring the application of the Statute of
Frauds as the contract was already partially executed. As to the non-existence of a
written contract evidencing the same, PELA ascribes fault on the bank claiming that
nothing happened despite its repeated follow-ups for the OIC of Al-Amanah to
execute the deed after payment of the P150,000.00 in May 1993.
Issue
At issue before us is whether there was a perfected contract of sale between PELA
and Al-Amanah, the resolution of which will decide whether the sale of the lot to
Robern should be sustained or not.
RULING
We shall first briefly address some matters raised by PELA.
PELAs contention that Robern cannot assail the alleged sale between
PELA and Al-Amanah is untenable. Robern is one of the parties who claim title
to the disputed lot. As such, it is a real party in interest since it stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment.
Petitioners failure to attach the material portions of the record that would support
the allegations in the Petition is not fatal. We ruled in F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems,
Inc. v. Online Networks International, Inc.,thus:
x x x However, such a requirement failure to attach material portions of the record
was not meant to be an ironclad rule such that the failure to follow the same would
merit the outright dismissal of the petition. In accordance with Section 7 of Rule 45,
the Supreme Court may require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs,
memoranda or documents as it may deem necessary within such periods and under
such conditions as it may consider appropriate. More importantly, Section 8 of Rule
45 declares that [i]f the petition is given due course, the Supreme Court may
require the elevation of the complete record of the case or specified parts thereof
within fifteen (15) days from notice. x x x
Anent the statement of the courts below that there was an apparent perfection of
contract (of sale) between Al-Amanah and PELA, we hold that the same is strictly
confined to the resolution of whether a writ of preliminary injunction should issue
since the PELA members were then about to be evicted. PELA should not rely on
such statement as the same is not decisive of the rights of the parties and the
merits of this case.
We shall now delve into the crucial issue of whether there was a perfected
contract of sale between PELA and Al-Amanah.
Essential Elements of a Contract of Sale
A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the
thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. Thus, for a contract of
sale to be valid, all of the following essential elements must concur: "a) consent or
meeting of the minds; b) determinate subject matter; and c) price certain in money
or its equivalent."
In the case at bench, there is no controversy anent the determinate subject matter,
i.e., the 2,000-square meter lot. This leaves us to resolve whether there was a
concurrence of the remaining elements.
As for the price, fixing it can never be left to the decision of only one of the
contracting parties. "But a price fixed by one of the contracting parties, if accepted
by the other, gives rise to a perfected sale."
As regards consent, "when there is merely an offer by one party without acceptance
of the other, there is no contract." The decision to accept a bidders proposal must
be communicated to the bidder.53 However, a binding contract may exist between
the parties whose minds have met, although they did not affix their signatures to
any written document, as acceptance may be expressed or implied. It "can be
inferred from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting parties."
Thus, we held:
x x x The rule is that except where a formal acceptance is so required, although the
acceptance must be affirmatively and clearly made and must be evidenced by some
acts or conduct communicated to the offeror, it may be made either in a formal or
an informal manner, and may be shown by acts, conduct, or words of the accepting
party that clearly manifest a present intention or determination to accept the offer
to buy or sell. Thus, acceptance may be shown by the acts, conduct, or words of a
party recognizing the existence of the contract of sale.
There is no perfected contract of sale between PELA and Al-Amanah for want of
consent and agreement on the price.
After scrutinizing the testimonial and documentary evidence in the records of the
case, we find no proof of a perfected contract of sale between Al-Amanah and PELA.
The parties did not agree on the price and no consent was given, whether express
or implied.
When PELA Secretary Florida Ramos (Ramos) testified, she referred to the March 18,
1993 letter which PELA sent to Al-Amanah as the document supposedly embodying
the perfected contract of sale.58 However, we find that the March 18, 1993 letter
referred to was merely an offer to buy.
According to the plan of PELA, about 24 landless families can be accommodated in
the property. We hope the Bank can help these families own even a small plot for
their shelter. This would be in line with the governments program of housing which
the present administration promised to put in high gear this year.(Emphasis
supplied)
Neither can the note written by the bank that "subject offer has been
acknowledged/received but processing to take effect upon putting up of the partial
amount of P150,000.00 on or before April 15, 1993" be construed as acceptance of
PELAs offer to buy. Taken at face value, the annotation simply means that the bank
merely acknowledged receipt of PELAs letter-offer. Furthermore, by processing, AlAmanah only meant that it will act on the offer, i.e., it still has to evaluate whether
PELAs offer is acceptable. Until and unless Al-Amanah accepts, there is as yet no
perfected contract of sale. Notably here, the bank never signified its approval or
acceptance of the offer.
We cannot agree with the CAs ratiocination that receipt of the amount, coupled
with the phrase written on the four receipts as "deposit on sale of TCT No. 138914,"
signified a tacit acceptance by Al-Amanah of PELAs offer. For sure, the money PELA
gave was not in the concept of an earnest money. Besides, as testified to by then
OIC Dalig, it is the usual practice of Al-Amanah to require submission of a bid
deposit which is acknowledged by way of bank receipts before it entertains offers.
It is thus undisputed, and PELA even acknowledges, that OIC Dalig made it clear
that the acceptance of the offer, notwithstanding the deposit, is subject to the
approval of the Head Office. Recognizing the corporate nature of the bank and that
the power to sell its real properties is lodged in the higher authorities,65 she never
falsely represented to the bidders that she has authority to sell the banks property.
And regardless of PELAs insistence that she execute a written agreement of the
sale, she refused and told PELA to wait for the decision of the Head Office, making it
clear that she has no authority to execute any deed of sale.
Contracts undergo three stages: "a) negotiation which begins from the time the
prospective contracting parties indicate interest in the contract and ends at the
moment of their agreement[; b) perfection or birth, x x x which takes place when
the parties agree upon all the essential elements of the contract x x x; and c)
consummation, which occurs when the parties fulfill or perform the terms agreed
upon, culminating in the extinguishment thereof."
In the case at bench, the transaction between Al-Amanah and PELA remained in the
negotiation stage. The offer never materialized into a perfected sale, for no oral or
documentary evidence categorically proves that Al-Amanah expressed amenability
to the offered P300,000.00 purchase price. Before the lapse of the 1-year period
PELA had set to pay the remaining balance, Al-Amanah expressly rejected its
offered purchase price, although it took the latter around seven months to inform
the former and this entitled PELA to award of damages.67 Al-Amanahs act of selling
the lot to another buyer is the final nail in the coffin of the negotiation with PELA.
Clearly, there is no double sale, thus, we find no reason to disturb the consummated
sale between Al-Amanah and Robern.
At this juncture, it is well to stress that Al-Amanahs Petition before this Court
docketed as G.R. No. 173437 was already denied with finality on December 4, 2006.
Hence, we see no reason to disturb paragraph 6 of the CAs Decision ordering AlAmanah to pay damages to PELA.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the Petition