TodayisWednesday,August03,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L9871January31,1958
ATKINS,KROLLandCO.,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
B.CUAHIANTEK,respondent.
RossSelph,CarrascosoandJandaforpetitioner.
PoncianoT.Castroforrespondent.
BENGZON,J.:
Review of a Court of Appeals' decision. For its failure to deliver one thousand cartons of sardines, which it had
soldtoB.CuaHianTek,petitionerwassued,andaftertrialwasorderedbytheManilacourtoffirstinstanceto
Pay damages, which on appeal was reduced by the Court of Appeals to P3,240.15 representing unrealized
profits.
Therewasnosuchcontractofsale,sayspetitioner,butonlyanoptiontobuy,whichwasnotenforceableforlack
ofconsiderationbecauseinaccordancewithArt.1479oftheNewCivilCode"anacceptedunilatateralpromiseto
buyortoselladeterminatethingforapricecertainisbindinguponthepromisorifthepromiseissupportedbya
considerationdistinctfromtheprice.
Simplearethefactsofthiscase:DatedSeptember13,1951,petitionersenttorespondentaletterofthefollowing
tenor:
Sir(s)/Madam:
Wearepleasedtomakeyouherewiththefollowingfirmoffer,subjecttoreplybySeptember23,1951:
QuantityandCommodity:
400Ctns.LunetabrandSardinesinTomatoSauce48/15oz.Ovalsat$8.25Ctn.
300Ctns.LunteabrandSardinesNatural48/15oz.tallsat$6.25Ct.
300Ctns.LunetabrandSardinesinTomatoSauce100/5oz.tallsat$7.48Ct.
Price(s):
AllpricesCadFManilaCosularFeesof$6.00tobeadded.
Shipmet:
DurigSeptember/OctoberfromUSPorts.
Supplier:
Atkins,Kroll&Co.,SaFrasisco,Cal.U.S.A.
Wearelookingforwardtoreceiveyourvaluedorderandremain.
Verytrulyyours,
The Court of first instance and the Court of Appeals1 found that B. Cua Hian Tek accepted the offer

unconditionallyanddeliveredhisletterofacceptanceExh.BonSeptember21,1951.However,duetoshortage
ofcatchofsardinesbythepackersinCalifornia,AtkinsKroll&Co.,failedtodeliverthecommoditiesithadoffered
for sale. There are other details to which reference shall not be made, as they touch the question whether the
acceptancehadbeenhandedontimeandonthatissueofCourtofAppealsdefinitelyfoundforplaintiff.
Ayway, in presenting its case before this Court petitioner does not dispute such timely acceptance. It merely
raisesthepointthattheacceptanceonlycreatedanoption,which,lackingconsideration,hadnoobligatoryforce.
The offer Exh. A, petitioner argues, "was a promise to sell a determinate thing for a price certain. Upon its
acceptancebyrespondent,theofferbecameanacceptedunilateralpromisetoselladeterminatethingforprice
certain.Inasmuchastherewasnoconsiderationtosupportthepromisetoselldistinctfromtheprice,itfollows
that under Art. 1479 aforequoted, the promise is not binding on the petitioner even if it was accepted by
respondent."(p.12briefofpetitioner.).
The argument, maifestly assumes that only a unilateral promise arose when the offeree accepted. Such
assumptionisamistake,becauseabilateralcotracttosellandtobuywascreateduponacceptance.Somuchso
thatB.CuaHianTekcouldbesued,hehadbackedoutafteraccepting,byrefusingtogetthesardinesand/orto
payfortheirprice.Indeed,theword"option"isfoundneitherintheoffernorintheacceptance.Onthecopntrary
Exh. B accepted "the firm offer for the sale" and adds, "the undersigned buyer has immediately filed an
applicationforimportlicense..."(EmphasisOurs.).
Petitioner,however,insiststheofferwasamereofferofoption,becausethe"firmoffer"Exh.A.wasacontinuing
offer to sell until September 23, "an option is nothing more than a continuing offer" for a specified time. In our
opinion implies more than that: it implies the legal obligation to keep open for the time specified.2 Yet the letter
Exh. A did not by itself produce the legal obligation of keeping the offer open up ot Septmber 23. It could be
withdrawnbeforeacceptance,becauseitisadmitted,therewasnoconsiderationforit.
ART.1324.Whentheoffererhasshowedtheoffereeacertainperiodtoaccept,theoffermaybewithdrawn
atanytimebeforeacceptancebycommunicatingsuchwithdrawal,exceptwhentheoptionisfoundedupon
aconsideration,assomnethingpaidorpromissed.(n)(NewCivilCode.).
Ordinarilyanoffertobuyorsellmaybewithdrawnorcountermandedbeforeaccepatnce,eventhoughthe
offer provides that it will not be withdrawn or countermanded, or allows the offeree a certain time within
which to accept it, unless such provision or agreement is supported by an independent consideration. . .
(77CorpusJurisSecundump.636.).
Furthermore,anoptionisunilateral:apromisetosell3 at the price fixed whenever the offeree should decide to
exercisehisoptionwithinthespecifiedtime.Afteracceptingthepromiseandbeforeheexerciseshisoption,the
holder of the option is not bound to buy. He is free either to buy or not to later. In this case, however, upon
accepetinghereinpetitioner'sofferabilateralpromisetosellandtobuyensued,andtherespondentipsofacto
assumedtheobligationsofapurchaser.Hedidnotjustgettherightsubsequentlytobuyornottobuy.Itwasnot
amereoptionthenitwasbilalteralcontractofsale.
Lastly,evensupposingthatExh.Agrantedanoptionwhichisnotbindingforlackofconsideration,theauthorities
holdthat.
Iftheoptionisgivenwithoutaconsideration,itisamereofferofacontractofsale,whichisnotbindinguntil
accepted. If, however, acceptance is made before a withdrawal, it constitutes a binding contract of sale,
eventhoughtheoptionwasnotsupportedbyasufficientconsideration...(77CorpusJurisSecundump.
652.Seealso27RulingCaseLaw339andcasescited.).
Itcanbetakenforgranted,ascontendedbythedefendants,thattheoptioncontractwasnotvalidforlack
ofconsideration.Butitwas,atleast,anoffertosell,whichwasacceptedbyletter,andofthisacceptance
the offerer had knowledge before said offer was withdrawn. The concurrence of both actsthe offer and
the acceptancecould at all events have generated a contract, if none there was before (atrs. 1254 and
1262oftheCivilCode).(Zaycovs.Serra,44Phil.331.).
One additional observation should be made before the closing this opinion. The defense in the court of first
instance rested on the proposition or propositions that the offer had not been precedent had not been fulfilled.
Thisoptionwithoutconsiderationideawasnevermentionedintheanswer.AChangeoftheoryintheappellate
courtsisnotpermitted.
In order that a question may be raised on appeal, it is essential that it be within the issues made by the
partiesintheirpleadings.Consequently,whenapartydeliberatelyadoptsacertaintheory,andthecaseis
tried and decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on
appealbecause,topermithimtodoso,wouldbeunfairtotheadverseparty.(RulesofCourtbyMoran
1957Ed.Vol.Ip.715citingAgoncillovs.Javier,38Phil.424AmericanExpressCompanyvs.Natividad,46

Phil.207SanAgustinvs.Barrios,68Phil.465,480Toribiovs.Dacasa,55Phil.461.).
Wemustthereforehold,asthelowercourtshaveheldthattherewasacontractofsalebetweentheparties.And
as no legal excuse has been proven, the seller's failure to comply therewith gave around to an award for
damages,whichhasbeenfixedbytheCourtofAppealsatP3,240.15amountwhichpetitionerdoesnotdisputein
thisfinalinstance.
Consequently,thedecisionunderreviewshouldbe,anditisherebyaffirmed,withcostagainstpetitioner.
Paras,C.J.,Padilla,Montemayor,Reyes,A.,Concepcion,Reyes,J.B.L.,Endencia,andFelix,JJ.,concur.
BautistaAngelo,J.,concursintheresult.

Footnotes
1p.6briefofpetitioner.
2Morasevs.Burleigh170La.270,127So.624.
3Ortobuyasthecasemaybe.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation