FEDERICO SERRA, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS AND RCBC Article 1479, New Civil Code Petitioner is the owner of a 374 square meter parcel of land in Masbate. Sometime in 1975, respondent bank, in its desire to put up a branch in Masbate, negotiated with petitioner for the purchase of the then unregistered property. On May 20, 1975, a contract of LEASE WITH OPTION TO BUY was instead forged by the parties, a lease contract for 25yrs was agreed. Pursuant to said contract, a building and other improvements were constructed on the land which housed the branch office of RCBC in Masbate. Petitioner alleges that as soon as he had the property registered, he kept on pursuing the manager of the branch to effect the sale of the lot as per their agreement. It was only on September 4, 1984, when the respondent bank decided to exercise its option to buy the property at the agreed price. But much to the surprise of the respondent, petitioner is no longer selling the property. A complaint for specific performance and damages were filed by respondent. In the complaint, respondent alleged that during the negotiations it made clear to petitioner that it intends to stay permanently on property once its branch office is opened unless the exigencies of the business requires otherwise. Petitioner contended respondent set lopsided terms for his undue achievement, and that the option was not supported by any consderation distinct from the price, and such option was not exercised within the reasonable time after the registration under Torrens title hence not valid. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint. Although it found the contract to be valid, the court nonetheless ruled that the option to buy in unenforceable because it lacked a consideration distinct from the price and RCBC did not exercise its option within reasonable time. Upon motion for reconsideration, the court in its order, reversed itsel. Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court. Supreme Court: The petition is devoid of merit. The contract is valid and existing between the parties. A contract of adhesion- party, usually a corporation, prepares the stipulations in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his "adhesion" thereto. These types of contracts are as binding as ordinary contracts. Because in reality, the party who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely. Article 1324 of the Civil Code provides that when an offeror has allowed the offeree a certain period to accept, the offer maybe withdrawn at anytime before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is

founded upon consideration, as something paid or promised. On the other hand, Article 1479 of the Code provides that an accepted unilateral promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promisor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price. In a unilateral promise to sell, where the debtor fails to withdraw the promise before the acceptance by the creditor, the transaction becomes a bilateral contract to sell and to buy, because upon acceptance by the creditor of the offer to sell by the debtor, there is already a meeting of the minds of the parties as to the thing which is determinate and the price which is certain. An optional contract is a privilege existing only in one party the buyer. For a separate consideration paid, he is given the right to decide to purchase or not, a certain merchandise or property, at any time within the agreed period, at a fixed price. This being his prerogative, he may not be compelled to exercise the option to buy before the time expires. The consideration is even more onerous on the part of the lessee since it entails transferring of the building and/or improvements on the property to petitioner, should respondent bank fail to exercise its option within the period stipulated. Whether the price "not greater than TWO HUNDRED PESOS" is certain or definite. A price is considered certain if it is so with reference to another thing certain or when the determination thereof is left to the judgment of a specified person or persons. And generally, gross inadequacy of price does not affect a contract of sale. Contracts are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties themselves have used. In the present dispute, there is evidence to show that the intention of the parties is to peg the price at P210 per square meter. This was confirmed by petitioner himself in his testimony. The contract of "LEASE WITH OPTION TO BUY" between petitioner and respondent bank is valid, effective and enforceable, the price being certain and that there was consideration distinct from the price to support the option given to the lessee.

ROBERTO D. TUAZON, Petitioner, vs. LOURDES Q. DEL ROSARIO-SUAREZ Respondent was the owner of a parcel of land, previously covered by Transfer Certificate of Title. Petitioner and Lourdes executed a Contract of Lease over the abovementioned parcel of land for a period of three years. During the effectivity of the lease, Lourdes sent a letter to Roberto where she offered to sell to the latter subject parcel of land. She pegged the price and gave him two years to decide on the said offer. Four months after the expiration of the Contract of Lease, Lourdes sold subject parcel of land to her only child, Catalina Suarez-De Leon, her son-in-law Wilfredo De Leon, and

her two grandsons, Miguel Luis S. De Leon and Rommel S. De Leon (the De Leons), for a total consideration of only P2,750,000.00 as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale7 executed by the parties. TCT No. 1779868 was then issued by the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of the De Leons. The new owners through their attorney-in-fact, Guillerma S. Silva, notified Roberto to vacate the premises. Roberto refused hence, the De Leons filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City against him. On August 30, 2000, the MeTC rendered a Decision9 ordering Roberto to vacate the property for non-payment of rentals and expiration of the contract. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court On November 8, 2000, while the ejectment case was on appeal, Roberto filed with the RTC of Quezon City a Complaint10 for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale, Reconveyance, Damages and Application for Preliminary Injunction against Lourdes and the De Leons. On November 13, 2000, Roberto filed a Notice of Lis Pendens11 with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. On January 8, 2001, respondents filed An Answer with Counterclaim12 praying that the Complaint be dismissed for lack of cause of action. They claimed that the filing of such case was a mere leverage of Roberto against them because of the favorable Decision issued by the MeTC in the ejectment case. On September 17, 2001, the RTC issued an Order13 declaring Lourdes and the De Leons in default for their failure to appear before the court for the second time despite notice. Upon a Motion for Reconsideration,14 the trial court in an Order15 dated October 19, 2001 set aside its Order of default. After trial, the court a quo rendered a Decision declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale made by Lourdes in favor of the De Leons as valid and binding. The offer made by Lourdes to Roberto did not ripen into a contract to sell because the price offered by the former was not acceptable to the latter. The offer made by Lourdes is no longer binding and effective at the time she decided to sell the subject lot to the De Leons because the same was not accepted by Roberto. Thus, in a Decision dated November 18, 2002, the trial court dismissed the complaint. Its dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the aboveentitled Complaint for lack of merit, and ordering the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants, the following: 1. the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages; 2. the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; 3. the amount of P30,000.00 as attorneys fees; and 4. cost of the litigation. SO ORDERED.16

Ruling of the Court of Appeals On May 30, 2005, the CA issued its Decision dismissing Robertos appeal and affirming the Decision of the RTC. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Roberto advancing the following arguments: I. The Trial Court and the Court of Appeals had decided that the "Right of First Refusal" exists only within the parameters of an "Option to Buy", and did not exist when the property was sold later to a third person, under favorable terms and conditions which the former buyer can meet. II. What is the status or sanctions of an appellee in the Court of Appeals who has not filed or failed to file an appellees brief?17 Petitioners Arguments Roberto claims that Lourdes violated his right to buy subject property under the principle of "right of first refusal" by not giving him "notice" and the opportunity to buy the property under the same terms and conditions or specifically based on the much lower price paid by the De Leons. Roberto further contends that he is enforcing his "right of first refusal" based on Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc.18 which is the leading case on the "right of first refusal." Respondents Arguments On the other hand, respondents posit that this case is not covered by the principle of "right of first refusal" but an unaccepted unilateral promise to sell or, at best, a contract of option which was not perfected. The letter of Lourdes to Roberto clearly embodies an option contract as it grants the latter only two years to exercise the option to buy the subject property at a price certain of P37,541,000.00. As an option contract, the said letter would have been binding upon Lourdes without need of any consideration, had Roberto accepted the offer. But in this case there was no acceptance made neither was there a distinct consideration for the option contract. Our Ruling The petition is without merit. This case involves an option contract and not a contract of a right of first refusal In Beaumont v. Prieto,19 the nature of an option contract is explained thus:

In his Law Dictionary, edition of 1897, Bouvier defines an option as a contract, in the following language: A contract by virtue of which A, in consideration of the payment of a certain sum to B, acquires the privilege of buying from, or selling to, B certain securities or properties within a limited time at a specified price. (Story vs. Salamon, 71 N. Y., 420.) From Vol. 6, page 5001, of the work "Words and Phrases," citing the case of Ide vs. Leiser (24 Pac., 695; 10 Mont., 5; 24 Am. St. Rep., 17) the following quotation has been taken: An agreement in writing to give a person the option to purchase lands within a given time at a named price is neither a sale nor an agreement to sell. It is simply a contract by which the owner of property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price within a certain time. He does not sell his land; he does not then agree to sell it; but he does sell something; that is, the right or privilege to buy at the election or option of the other party. The second party gets in praesenti, not lands, nor an agreement that he shall have lands, but he does get something of value; that is, the right to call for and receive lands if he elects. The owner parts with his right to sell his lands, except to the second party, for a limited period. The second party receives this right, or rather, from his point of view, he receives the right to elect to buy. But the two definitions above cited refer to the contract of option, or, what amounts to the same thing, to the case where there was cause or consideration for the obligation x x x. (Emphasis supplied.) On the other hand, in Ang Yu Asuncion v. Court of Appeals,20 an elucidation on the "right of first refusal" was made thus: In the law on sales, the so-called right of first refusal is an innovative juridical relation. Needless to point out, it cannot be deemed a perfected contract of sale under Article 1458 of the Civil Code. Neither can the right of first refusal, understood in its normal concept, per se be brought within the purview of an option under the second paragraph of Article 1479, aforequoted, or possibly of an offer under Article 1319 of the same Code. An option or an offer would require, among other things, a clear certainty on both the object and the cause or consideration of the envisioned contract. In a right of first refusal, while the object might be made determinate, the exercise of the right, however, would be dependent not only on the grantor's eventual intention to enter into a binding juridical relation with another but also on terms, including the price, that obviously are yet to be later firmed up. Prior thereto, it can at best be so described as merely belonging to a class of preparatory juridical relations governed not by contracts (since the essential elements to establish the vinculum juris would still be indefinite and inconclusive) but by, among other laws of general application, the pertinent scattered provisions of the Civil Code on human conduct. Even on the premise that such right of first refusal has been decreed under a final judgment, like here, its breach cannot justify correspondingly an issuance of a writ of execution under a judgment that merely recognizes its existence, nor would it sanction an

action for specific performance without thereby negating the indispensable element of consensuality in the perfection of contracts. It is not to say, however, that the right of first refusal would be inconsequential for, such as already intimated above, an unjustified disregard thereof, given, for instance, the circumstances expressed in Article 19 of the Civil Code, can warrant a recovery for damages. (Emphasis supplied.) From the foregoing, it is thus clear that an option contract is entirely different and distinct from a right of first refusal in that in the former, the option granted to the offeree is for a fixed period and at a determined price. Lacking these two essential requisites, what is involved is only a right of first refusal. In this case, the controversy is whether the letter of Lourdes to Roberto dated January 2, 1995 involved an option contract or a contract of a right of first refusal. In its entirety, the said letter-offer reads: 206 Valdes Street Josefa Subd. Balibago Angeles City 2009 January 2, 1995 Tuazon Const. Co. 986 Tandang Sora Quezon City Dear Mr. Tuazon, I received with great joy and happiness the big box of sweet grapes and ham, fit for a kings party. Thanks very much. I am getting very old (79 going 80 yrs. old) and wish to live in the U.S.A. with my only family. I need money to buy a house and lot and a farm with a little cash to start. I am offering you to buy my 1211 square meter at P37,541,000.00 you can pay me in dollars in the name of my daughter. I never offered it to anyone. Please shoulder the expenses for the transfer. I wish the Lord God will help you buy my lot easily and you will be very lucky forever in this place. You have all the time to decide when you can, but not for 2 years or more. I wish you long life, happiness, health, wealth and great fortune always! I hope the Lord God will help you be the recipient of multi-billion projects aid from other countries. Thank you, Lourdes Q. del Rosario vda de Suarez It is clear that the above letter embodies an option contract as it grants Roberto a fixed period of only two years to buy the subject property at a price certain of P37,541,000.00.

It being an option contract, the rules applicable are found in Articles 1324 and 1479 of the Civil Code which provide: Art. 1324. When the offerer has allowed the offeree a certain period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any time before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is founded upon a consideration, as something paid or promised. Art. 1479. A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally demandable. An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price. It is clear from the provision of Article 1324 that there is a great difference between the effect of an option which is without a consideration from one which is founded upon a consideration. If the option is without any consideration, the offeror may withdraw his offer by communicating such withdrawal to the offeree at anytime before acceptance; if it is founded upon a consideration, the offeror cannot withdraw his offer before the lapse of the period agreed upon. The second paragraph of Article 1479 declares that "an accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price." Sanchez v. Rigos21 provided an interpretation of the said second paragraph of Article 1479 in relation to Article 1324. Thus: There is no question that under Article 1479 of the new Civil Code "an option to sell," or "a promise to buy or to sell," as used in said article, to be valid must be "supported by a consideration distinct from the price." This is clearly inferred from the context of said article that a unilateral promise to buy or to sell, even if accepted, is only binding if supported by consideration. In other words, "an accepted unilateral promise can only have a binding effect if supported by a consideration, which means that the option can still be withdrawn, even if accepted, if the same is not supported by any consideration. Hence, it is not disputed that the option is without consideration. It can therefore be withdrawn notwithstanding the acceptance made of it by appellee. It is true that under Article 1324 of the new Civil Code, the general rule regarding offer and acceptance is that, when the offerer gives to the offeree a certain period to accept, "the offer may be withdrawn at any time before acceptance" except when the option is founded upon consideration, but this general rule must be interpreted as modified by the provision of Article 1479 above referred to, which applies to "a promise to buy and sell" specifically. As already stated, this rule requires that a promise to sell to be valid must be supported by a consideration distinct from the price. In Diamante v. Court of Appeals,22 this Court further declared that: A unilateral promise to buy or sell is a mere offer, which is not converted into a contract except at the moment it is accepted. Acceptance is the act that gives life to a juridical

obligation, because, before the promise is accepted, the promissor may withdraw it at any time. Upon acceptance, however, a bilateral contract to sell and to buy is created, and the offeree ipso facto assumes the obligations of a purchaser; the offeror, on the other hand, would be liable for damages if he fails to deliver the thing he had offered for sale. xxxx Even if the promise was accepted, private respondent was not bound thereby in the absence of a distinct consideration. (Emphasis ours.) In this case, it is undisputed that Roberto did not accept the terms stated in the letter of Lourdes as he negotiated for a much lower price. Robertos act of negotiating for a much lower price was a counter-offer and is therefore not an acceptance of the offer of Lourdes. Article 1319 of the Civil Code provides: Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer. (Emphasis supplied.) The counter-offer of Roberto for a much lower price was not accepted by Lourdes. There is therefore no contract that was perfected between them with regard to the sale of subject property. Roberto, thus, does not have any right to demand that the property be sold to him at the price for which it was sold to the De Leons neither does he have the right to demand that said sale to the De Leons be annulled. Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc. is not applicable here It is the position of Roberto that the facts of this case and that of Equatorial are similar in nearly all aspects. Roberto is a lessee of the property like Mayfair Theater in Equatorial. There was an offer made to Roberto by Lourdes during the effectivity of the contract of lease which was also the case in Equatorial. There were negotiations as to the price which did not bear fruit because Lourdes sold the property to the De Leons which was also the case in Equatorial wherein Carmelo and Bauermann sold the property to Equatorial. The existence of the lease of the property is known to the De Leons as they are related to Lourdes while in Equatorial, the lawyers of Equatorial studied the lease contract of Mayfair over the property. The property in this case was sold by Lourdes to the De Leons at a much lower price which is also the case in Equatorial where Carmelo and Bauerman sold to Equatorial at a lesser price. It is Robertos conclusion that as in the case of Equatorial, there was a violation of his right of first refusal and hence annulment or rescission of the Deed of Absolute Sale is the proper remedy. Robertos reliance in Equatorial is misplaced. Despite his claims, the facts in Equatorial radically differ from the facts of this case. Roberto overlooked the fact that in Equatorial, there was an express provision in the Contract of Lease that (i)f the LESSOR should desire to sell the leased properties, the LESSEE shall be given 30-days exclusive option to purchase the same.

There is no such similar provision in the Contract of Lease between Roberto and Lourdes. What is involved here is a separate and distinct offer made by Lourdes through a letter dated January 2, 1995 wherein she is selling the leased property to Roberto for a definite price and which gave the latter a definite period for acceptance. Roberto was not given a right of first refusal. The letter-offer of Lourdes did not form part of the Lease Contract because it was made more than six months after the commencement of the lease. It is also very clear that in Equatorial, the property was sold within the lease period. In this case, the subject property was sold not only after the expiration of the period provided in the letter-offer of Lourdes but also after the effectivity of the Contract of Lease. Moreover, even if the offer of Lourdes was accepted by Roberto, still the former is not bound thereby because of the absence of a consideration distinct and separate from the price. The argument of Roberto that the separate consideration was the liberality on the part of Lourdes cannot stand. A perusal of the letter-offer of Lourdes would show that what drove her to offer the property to Roberto was her immediate need for funds as she was already very old. Offering the property to Roberto was not an act of liberality on the part of Lourdes but was a simple matter of convenience and practicality as he was the one most likely to buy the property at that time as he was then leasing the same. All told, the facts of the case, as found by the RTC and the CA, do not support Robertos claims that the letter of Lourdes gave him a right of first refusal which is similar to the one given to Mayfair Theater in the case of Equatorial. Therefore, there is no justification to annul the deed of sale validly entered into by Lourdes with the De Leons. What is the effect of the failure of Lourdes to file her appellees brief at the CA? Lastly, Roberto argues that Lourdes should be sanctioned for her failure to file her appellees brief before the CA. Certainly, the appellees failure to file her brief would not mean that the case would be automatically decided against her. Under the circumstances, the prudent action on the part of the CA would be to deem Lourdes to have waived her right to file her appellees brief. De Leon v. Court of Appeals,23 is instructive when this Court decreed: On the second issue, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in considering the appeal submitted for decision. The proper remedy in case of denial of the motion to dismiss is to file the appellees brief and proceed with the appeal. Instead, petitioner opted to file a motion for reconsideration which, unfortunately, was pro forma. All the grounds raised therein have been discussed in the first resolution of the respondent Court of Appeals. There is no new ground raised that might warrant reversal of the resolution. A cursory perusal of the motion would readily show that it was a near verbatim repetition of the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss; hence, the filing of the motion for reconsideration did not suspend the period for filing the appellees brief. Petitioner was therefore properly deemed to have waived his right to file appellees brief. (Emphasis supplied.)lawphi1 In the above cited case, De Leon was the plaintiff in a Complaint for a sum of money in

the RTC. He obtained a favorable judgment and so defendant went to the CA. The appeal of defendant-appellant was taken cognizance of by the CA but De Leon filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal with Motion to Suspend Period to file Appellees Brief. The CA denied the Motion to Dismiss. De Leon filed a Motion for Reconsideration which actually did not suspend the period to file the appellees brief. De Leon therefore failed to file his brief within the period specified by the rules and hence he was deemed by the CA to have waived his right to file appellees brief. The failure of the appellee to file his brief would not result to the rendition of a decision favorable to the appellant. The former is considered only to have waived his right to file the Appellees Brief. The CA has the jurisdiction to resolve the case based on the Appellants Brief and the records of the case forwarded by the RTC. The appeal is therefore considered submitted for decision and the CA properly acted on it. WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 78870, which affirmed the Decision dated November 18, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 101, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-00-42338 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

SPOUSES JULIO D. VILLAMOR AND MARINA VILLAMOR, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES MACARIA LABINGISA REYES AND ROBERTO REYES, respondents. Tranquilino F. Meris for petitioners. Agripino G. Morga for private respondents. MEDIALDEA, J.:p This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 24176 entitled, "Spouses Julio Villamor and Marina Villamor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus Spouses Macaria Labing-isa Reyes and Roberto Reyes, Defendants-Appellants," which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 121) at Caloocan City in Civil Case No. C-12942. The facts of the case are as follows: Macaria Labingisa Reyes was the owner of a 600-square meter lot located at Baesa, Caloocan City, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (18431) 18938, of the Register of Deeds of Rizal.

In July 1971, Macaria sold a portion of 300 square meters of the lot to the Spouses Julio and Marina and Villamor for the total amount of P21,000.00. Earlier, Macaria borrowed P2,000.00 from the spouses which amount was deducted from the total purchase price of the 300 square meter lot sold. The portion sold to the Villamor spouses is now covered by TCT No. 39935 while the remaining portion which is still in the name of Macaria Labing-isa is covered by TCT No. 39934 (pars. 5 and 7, Complaint). On November 11, 1971, Macaria executed a "Deed of Option" in favor of Villamor in which the remaining 300 square meter portion (TCT No. 39934) of the lot would be sold to Villamor under the conditions stated therein. The document reads:
DEED OF OPTION This Deed of Option, entered into in the City of Manila, Philippines, this 11th day of November, 1971, by and between Macaria Labing-isa, of age, married to Roberto Reyes, likewise of age, and both resideing on Reparo St., Baesa, Caloocan City, on the one hand, and on the other hand the spouses Julio Villamor and Marina V. Villamor, also of age and residing at No. 552 Reparo St., corner Baesa Road, Baesa, Caloocan City. WITNESSETH That, I Macaria Labingisa, am the owner in fee simple of a parcel of land with an area of 600 square meters, more or less, more particularly described in TCT No. (18431) 18938 of the Office of the Register of Deeds for the province of Rizal, issued in may name, I having inherited the same from my deceased parents, for which reason it is my paraphernal property; That I, with the conformity of my husband, Roberto Reyes, have sold one-half thereof to the aforesaid spouses Julio Villamor and Marina V. Villamor at the price of P70.00 per sq. meter, which was greatly higher than the actual reasonable prevailing value of lands in that place at the time, which portion, after segregation, is now covered by TCT No. 39935 of the Register of Deeds for the City of Caloocan, issued on August 17, 1971 in the name of the aforementioned spouses vendees; That the only reason why the Spouses-vendees Julio Villamor and Marina V. Villamor, agreed to buy the said one-half portion at the above-stated price of about P70.00 per square meter, is because I, and my husband Roberto Reyes, have agreed to sell and convey to them the remaining one-half portion still owned by me and now covered by TCT No. 39935 of the Register of Deeds for the City of Caloocan, whenever the need of such sale arises, either on our part or on the part of the spouses (Julio) Villamor and Marina V. Villamor, at the same price of P70.00 per square meter, excluding whatever improvement may be found the thereon; That I am willing to have this contract to sell inscribed on my aforesaid title as an encumbrance upon the property covered thereby, upon payment of the corresponding fees; and That we, Julio Villamor and Marina V. Villamor, hereby agree to, and accept, the above provisions of this Deed of Option. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Deed of Option is signed in the City of Manila, Philippines, by all the persons concerned, this 11th day of November, 1971. JULIO VILLAMOR MACARIA LABINGISA

With My Conformity: MARINA VILLAMOR ROBERTO REYES Signed in the Presence Of: MARIANO ROSALINDA S. EUGENIO ACKNOWLEDGMENT REPUBLIC CITY OF MANILA ) S.S. OF THE PHILIPPINES) Z. SUNIGA

At the City of Manila, on the 11th day of November, 1971, personally appeared before me Roberto Reyes, Macaria Labingisa, Julio Villamor and Marina Ventura-Villamor, known to me as the same persons who executed the foregoing Deed of Option, which consists of two (2) pages including the page whereon this acknowledgement is written, and signed at the left margin of the first page and at the bottom of the instrument by the parties and their witnesses, and sealed with my notarial seal, and said parties acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and deed. The Residence Certificates of the parties were exhibited to me as follows: Roberto Reyes, A-22494, issued at Manila on Jan. 27, 1971, and B-502025, issued at Makati, Rizal on Feb. 18, 1971; Macaria Labingisa, A-3339130 and B-1266104, both issued at Caloocan City on April 15, 1971, their joint Tax Acct. Number being 3028-767-6; Julio Villamor, A-804, issued at Manila on Jan. 14, 1971, and B-138, issued at Manila on March 1, 1971; and Marina Ventura-Villamor, A-803, issued at Manila on Jan. 14, 1971, their joint Tax Acct. Number being 608-202-6. ARTEMIO M. Notary Until December 31, PTR No. 338203, January 15, 1971 Doc. Page Book Series of 1971. (pp. 25-29, Rollo) No. No. No. MALUBAY Public 1972 Manila 1526; 24; 38;

According to Macaria, when her husband, Roberto Reyes, retired in 1984, they offered to repurchase the lot sold by them to the Villamor spouses but Marina Villamor refused and reminded them instead that the Deed of Option in fact gave them the option to purchase the remaining portion of the lot. The Villamors, on the other hand, claimed that they had expressed their desire to purchase the remaining 300 square meter portion of the lot but the Reyeses had been ignoring them. Thus, on July 13, 1987, after conciliation proceedings in the barangay level failed, they filed a complaint for specific performance against the Reyeses. On July 26, 1989, judgment was rendered by the trial court in favor of the Villamor spouses, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, and (sic) in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants ordering the defendant MACARIA LABING-ISA

REYES and ROBERTO REYES, to sell unto the plaintiffs the land covered by T.C.T No. 39934 of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City, to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P3,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and to pay the cost of suit. The counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED, for LACK OF MERIT. SO ORDERED. (pp. 24-25, Rollo)

Not satisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Reyes spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals on the following assignment of errors:
1. HOLDING THAT THE DEED OF OPTION EXECUTED ON NOVEMBER 11, 1971 BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES AND DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS IS STILL VALID AND BINDING DESPITE THE LAPSE OF MORE THAN THIRTEEN (13) YEARS FROM THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT; 2. FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT THE DEED OF OPTION CONTAINS OBSCURE WORDS AND STIPULATIONS WHICH SHOULD BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES WHO UNILATERALLY DRAFTED AND PREPARED THE SAME; 3. HOLDING THAT THE DEED OF OPTION EXPRESSED THE TRUE INTENTION AND PURPOSE OF THE PARTIES DESPITE ADVERSE, CONTEMPORANEOUS AND SUBSEQUENT ACTS OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES; 4. FAILING TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR IGNORANCE PLACING THEM AT A DISADVANTAGE IN THE DEED OF OPTION; 5. FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION TILT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS; and 6. HOLDING DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS LIABLE TO PAY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES THE AMOUNT OF P3,000.00 FOR AND BY WAY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES. (pp. 31-32, Rollo)

On February 12, 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision reversing the decision of the trial court and dismissing the complaint. The reversal of the trial court's decision was premised on the finding of respondent court that the Deed of Option is void for lack of consideration. The Villamor spouses brought the instant petition for review on certiorari on the following grounds:
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PHRASE WHENEVER THE NEED FOR SUCH SALE ARISES ON OUR (PRIVATE RESPONDENT) PART OR ON THE PART OF THE SPOUSES JULIO D. VILLAMOR AND MARINA V. VILLAMOR' CONTAINED IN THE DEED OF OPTION DENOTES A SUSPENSIVE CONDITION; II. ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE QUESTIONED PHRASE IS INDEED A CONDITION, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING, THAT THE SAID CONDITION HAD ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED; III. ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE QUESTIONED PHRASE IS INDEED A CONDITION, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE IMPOSITION OF SAID CONDITION PREVENTED THE PERFECTION OF THE

CONTRACT OF SALE DESPITE THE EXPRESS OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE CONTAINED IN THE DEED OF OPTION; IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEED OF OPTION IS VOID FOR LACK OF CONSIDERATION; V. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A DISTINCT CONSIDERATION IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE DEED OF OPTION DESPITE THE EXPRESS OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE CONTAINED THEREIN. (p. 12, Rollo)

The pivotal issue to be resolved in this case is the validity of the Deed of Option whereby the private respondents agreed to sell their lot to petitioners "whenever the need of such sale arises, either on our part (private respondents) or on the part of Julio Villamor and Marina Villamor (petitioners)." The court a quo, rule that the Deed of Option was a valid written agreement between the parties and made the following conclusions:
xxx xxx xxx It is interesting to state that the agreement between the parties are evidence by a writing, hence, the controverting oral testimonies of the herein defendants cannot be any better than the documentary evidence, which, in this case, is the Deed of Option (Exh. "A" and "A-a") The law provides that when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing it is to be considered as containing all such terms, and therefore, there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest no evidence of their terms of the agreement, other than the contents of the writing. ... (Section 7 Rule 130 Revised Rules of Court) Likewise, it is a general and most inflexible rule that wherever written instruments are appointed either by the requirements of law, or by the contract of the parties, to be the repositories and memorials of truth, any other evidence is excluded from being used, either as a substitute for such instruments, or to contradict or alter them. This is a matter both of principle and of policy; of principle because such instruments are in their nature and origin entitled to a much higher degree of credit than evidence of policy, because it would be attended with great mischief if those instruments upon which man's rights depended were liable to be impeached by loose collateral evidence. Where the terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the document itself, being constituted by the parties as the expositor of their intentions, it is the only instrument of evidence in respect of that agreement which the law will recognize so long as it exists for the purpose of evidence. (Starkie, EV, pp. 648, 655 cited in Kasheenath vs. Chundy, W.R. 68, cited in Francisco's Rules of Court, Vol. VII Part I p. 153) (Emphasis supplied, pp. 126-127, Records).

The respondent appellate court, however, ruled that the said deed of option is void for lack of consideration. The appellate court made the following disquisitions:
Plaintiff-appellees say they agreed to pay P70.00 per square meter for the portion purchased by them although the prevailing price at that time was only P25.00 in consideration of the option to buy the remainder of the land. This does not seem to be the case. In the first place, the deed of sale was never produced by them to prove their claim. Defendant-appellants testified that no copy of the deed of sale had ever been given to them by the plaintiff-appellees. In the second place, if this was really the condition of the prior sale, we see no reason why it should be reiterated in the Deed of Option. On the contrary, the alleged overprice paid by the plaintiff-appellees is given in the Deed as reason for the desire of the Villamors to acquire the land rather than as a consideration

for the option given to them, although one might wonder why they took nearly 13 years to invoke their right if they really were in due need of the lot. At all events, the consideration needed to support a unilateral promise to sell is a dinstinct one, not something that is as uncertain as P70.00 per square meter which is allegedly 'greatly higher than the actual prevailing value of lands.' A sale must be for a price certain (Art. 1458). For how much the portion conveyed to the plaintiff-appellees was sold so that the balance could be considered the consideration for the promise to sell has not been shown, beyond a mere allegation that it was very much below P70.00 per square meter. The fact that plaintiff-appellees might have paid P18.00 per square meter for another land at the time of the sale to them of a portion of defendant-appellant's lot does not necessarily prove that the prevailing market price at the time of the sale was P18.00 per square meter. (In fact they claim it was P25.00). It is improbable that plaintiff-appellees should pay P52.00 per square meter for the privilege of buying when the value of the land itself was allegedly P18.00 per square meter. (pp. 34-35, Rollo)

As expressed in Gonzales v. Trinidad, 67 Phil. 682, consideration is "the why of the contracts, the essential reason which moves the contracting parties to enter into the contract." The cause or the impelling reason on the part of private respondent executing the deed of option as appearing in the deed itself is the petitioner's having agreed to buy the 300 square meter portion of private respondents' land at P70.00 per square meter "which was greatly higher than the actual reasonable prevailing price." This cause or consideration is clear from the deed which stated:
That the only reason why the spouses-vendees Julio Villamor and Marina V. Villamor agreed to buy the said one-half portion at the above stated price of about P70.00 per square meter, is because I, and my husband Roberto Reyes, have agreed to sell and convey to them the remaining one-half portion still owned by me ... (p. 26, Rollo)

The respondent appellate court failed to give due consideration to petitioners' evidence which shows that in 1969 the Villamor spouses bough an adjacent lot from the brother of Macaria Labing-isa for only P18.00 per square meter which the private respondents did not rebut. Thus, expressed in terms of money, the consideration for the deed of option is the difference between the purchase price of the 300 square meter portion of the lot in 1971 (P70.00 per sq.m.) and the prevailing reasonable price of the same lot in 1971. Whatever it is, (P25.00 or P18.00) though not specifically stated in the deed of option, was ascertainable. Petitioner's allegedly paying P52.00 per square meter for the option may, as opined by the appellate court, be improbable but improbabilities does not invalidate a contract freely entered into by the parties. The "deed of option" entered into by the parties in this case had unique features. Ordinarily, an optional contract is a privilege existing in one person, for which he had paid a consideration and which gives him the right to buy, for example, certain merchandise or certain specified property, from another person, if he chooses, at any time within the agreed period at a fixed price (Enriquez de la Cavada v. Diaz, 37 Phil. 982). If We look closely at the "deed of option" signed by the parties, We will notice that the first part covered the statement on the sale of

the 300 square meter portion of the lot to Spouses Villamor at the price of P70.00 per square meter "which was higher than the actual reasonable prevailing value of the lands in that place at that time (of sale)." The second part stated that the only reason why the Villamor spouses agreed to buy the said lot at a much higher price is because the vendor (Reyeses) also agreed to sell to the Villamors the other half-portion of 300 square meters of the land. Had the deed stopped there, there would be no dispute that the deed is really an ordinary deed of option granting the Villamors the option to buy the remaining 300 square meter-half portion of the lot in consideration for their having agreed to buy the other half of the land for a much higher price. But, the "deed of option" went on and stated that the sale of the other half would be made "whenever the need of such sale arises, either on our (Reyeses) part or on the part of the Spouses Julio Villamor and Marina V. Villamor. It appears that while the option to buy was granted to the Villamors, the Reyeses were likewise granted an option to sell. In other words, it was not only the Villamors who were granted an option to buy for which they paid a consideration. The Reyeses as well were granted an option to sell should the need for such sale on their part arise. In the instant case, the option offered by private respondents had been accepted by the petitioner, the promise, in the same document. The acceptance of an offer to sell for a price certain created a bilateral contract to sell and buy and upon acceptance, the offer, ipso facto assumes obligations of a vendee (See Atkins, Kroll & Co. v. Cua Mian Tek, 102 Phil. 948). Demandabilitiy may be exercised at any time after the execution of the deed. In Sanchez v. Rigos, No. L-25494, June 14, 1972, 45 SCRA 368, 376, We held:
In other words, since there may be no valid contract without a cause of consideration, the promisory is not bound by his promise and may, accordingly withdraw it. Pending notice of its withdrawal, his accepted promise partakes, however, of the nature of an offer to sell which, if accepted, results in a perfected contract of sale.

A contract of sale is, under Article 1475 of the Civil Code, "perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand perform of contracts." Since there was, between the parties, a meeting of minds upon the object and the price, there was already a perfected contract of sale. What was, however, left to be done was for either party to demand from the other their respective undertakings under the contract. It may be demanded at any time either by the private respondents, who may compel the petitioners to pay for the property or the petitioners, who may compel the private respondents to deliver the property. However, the Deed of Option did not provide for the period within which the parties may demand the performance of their respective undertakings in the instrument. The parties could not have contemplated that the delivery of the property and the payment thereof could be made indefinitely and render uncertain the status of the land. The failure of either parties to demand performance of the obligation of the other for an unreasonable length of time

renders the contract ineffective. Under Article 1144 (1) of the Civil Code, actions upon written contract must be brought within ten (10) years. The Deed of Option was executed on November 11, 1971. The acceptance, as already mentioned, was also accepted in the same instrument. The complaint in this case was filed by the petitioners on July 13, 1987, seventeen (17) years from the time of the execution of the contract. Hence, the right of action had prescribed. There were allegations by the petitioners that they demanded from the private respondents as early as 1984 the enforcement of their rights under the contract. Still, it was beyond the ten (10) years period prescribed by the Civil Code. In the case of Santos v. Ganayo, L-31854, September 9, 1982, 116 SCRA 431, this Court affirming and subscribing to the observations of the court a quo held, thus:
... Assuming that Rosa Ganayo, the oppositor herein, had the right based on the Agreement to Convey and Transfer as contained in Exhibits '1' and '1-A', her failure or the abandonment of her right to file an action against Pulmano Molintas when he was still a co-owner of the on-half (1/2) portion of the 10,000 square meters is now barred by laches and/or prescribed by law because she failed to bring such action within ten (10) years from the date of the written agreement in 1941, pursuant to Art. 1144 of the New Civil Code, so that when she filed the adverse claim through her counsel in 1959 she had absolutely no more right whatsoever on the same, having been barred by laches.

It is of judicial notice that the price of real estate in Metro Manila is continuously on the rise. To allow the petitioner to demand the delivery of the property subject of this case thirteen (13) years or seventeen (17) years after the execution of the deed at the price of only P70.00 per square meter is inequitous. For reasons also of equity and in consideration of the fact that the private respondents have no other decent place to live, this Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction is not inclined to grant petitioners' prayer. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent appellate court is AFFIRMED for reasons cited in this decision. Judgement is rendered dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. C-12942 on the ground of prescription and laches. SO ORDERED.

PEDRO ROMAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANDRES GRIMALT, defendant-appellee. Alberto Barretto, for appellant. Chicote, Miranda and Sierra, for appellee.

TORRES, J.: On July 2, 1904, counsel for Pedro Roman filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of this city against Andres Grimalt, praying that judgment be entered in his favor and against the defendant (1) for the purchase price of the schooner Santa Marina, to wit, 1,500 pesos or its equivalent in Philippine currency, payable by installments in the manner stipulated; (2) for legal interest on the installments due on the dates set forth in the complaint; (3) for costs of proceedings; and (4) for such other and further remedy as might be considered just and equitable. On October 24 of the same year the court made an order sustaining the demurer filed by defendant to the complaint and allowing plaintiff ten days within which to amend his complaint. To this order the plaintiff duly excepted. Counsel for plaintiff on November 5 amended his complaint and alleged that between the 13th and the 23rd day of June, 1904, both parties, through one Fernando Agustin Pastor, verbally agreed upon the sale of the said schooner; that the defendant in a letter dated June 23 had agreed to purchase the said schooner and of offered to pay therefor in three installment of 500 pesos each, to wit, on July 15, September 15, and November 15, adding in his letter that if the plaintiff accepted the plan of payment suggested by him the sale would become effective on the following day; that plaintiff on or about the 24th of the same month had notified the defendant through Agustin Pastor that he accepted the plan of payment suggested by him and that from that date the vessel was at his disposal, and offered to deliver the same at once to defendant if he so desired; that the contract having been closed and the vessel being ready for delivery to the purchaser, it was sunk about 3 o'clock p. m., June 25, in the harbor of Manila and is a total loss, as a result of a severe storm; and that on the 30th of the same month demand was made upon the defendant for the payment of the purchase price of the vessel in the manner stipulated and defendant failed to pay. Plaintiff finally prayed that judgment be rendered in accordance with the prayer of his previous complaint. Defendant in his answer asked that the complaint be dismissed with costs to the plaintiff, alleging that on or about June 13 both parties met in a public establishment of this city and the plaintiff personally proposed to the defendant the sale of the said vessel, the plaintiff stating that the vessel belonged to him and that it was then in a sea worthy condition; that defendant accepted the offer of sale on condition that the title papers were found to be satisfactory, also that the vessel was in a seaworthy condition; that both parties then called on Calixto Reyes, a notary public, who, after examining the documents, informed them that they were insufficient to show the ownership of the vessel and to transfer title thereto; that plaintiff then promised to perfect his title and about June 23 called on defendant to close the sale, and the defendant believing that plaintiff had perfected his title, wrote to him on the 23d of June and set the following day for the execution of the contract, but, upon being informed that plaintiff had done nothing to perfect his title, he insisted that he would buy the vessel only when the title papers were perfected and the vessel duly inspected. Defendant also denied the other allegations of the complaint inconsistent with his own allegations and further denied the statement contained in paragraph 4 of the complaint to

the effect that the contract was completed as to the vessel; that the purchase price and method of payment had been agreed upon; that the vessel was ready for delivery to the purchaser and that an attempt had been made to deliver the same, but admitted, however, the allegations contained in the last part of the said paragraph. The court below found that the parties had not arrived at a definite understanding. We think that this finding is supported by the evidence introduced at the trial. A sale shall be considered perfected and binding as between vendor and vendee when they have agreed as to the thing which is the object of the contract and as to the price, even though neither has been actually delivered. (Art. 1450 of the Civil Code.) Ownership is not considered transmitted until the property is actually delivered and the purchaser has taken possession of the value and paid the price agreed upon, in which case the sale is considered perfected. When the sale is made by means of a public instrument the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract. (Art. 1462 of the Civil Code.) Pedro Roman, the owner, and Andres Grimalt, the purchaser, had been for several days negotiating for the purchase of the schooner Santa Marina from the 13th to the 23d of June, 1904. They agreed upon the sale of the vessel for the sum of 1,500 pesos, payable in three installments, provided the title papers to the vessel were in proper form. It is so stated in the letter written by the purchaser to the owner on the 23rd of June. The sale of the schooner was not perfected and the purchaser did not consent to the execution of the deed of transfer for the reason that the title of the vessel was in the name of one Paulina Giron and not in the name of Pedro Roman, the alleged owner. Roman promised, however, to perfect his title to the vessel, but he failed to do so. The papers presented by him did not show that he was the owner of the vessel. If no contract of sale was actually executed by the parties the loss of the vessel must be borne by its owner and not by a party who only intended to purchase it and who was unable to do so on account of failure on the part of the owner to show proper title to the vessel and thus enable them to draw up the contract of sale. The vessel was sunk in the bay on the afternoon of the 25th of June, 1904, during a severe storm and before the owner had complied with the condition exacted by the proposed purchaser, to wit, the production of the proper papers showing that the plaintiff was in fact the owner of the vessel in question. The defendant was under no obligation to pay the price of the vessel, the purchase of which had not been concluded. The conversations had between the parties and the letter written by defendant to plaintiff did not establish a contract sufficient in itself to create reciprocal rights between the parties. It follows, therefore, that article 1452 of the Civil Code relative to the injury or benefit of the thing sold after a contract has been perfected and articles 1096 and 1182 of the same

code relative to the obligation to deliver a specified thing and the extinction of such obligation when the thing is either lost or destroyed, are not applicable to the case at bar. The first paragraph of article 1460 of the Civil Code and section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable. These provisions contemplate the existence of a perfected contract which can not, however, be enforced on account of the entire loss of the thing or made the basis of an action in court through failure to conform to the requisites provided by law. The judgment of the court below is affirmed and the complaint is dismissed with costs against the plaintiff. After the expiration of twenty days from the date hereof let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the Court of First Instance for proper action. So ordered.

NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS & ALBERTO NEPALES, respondents. Jose D. Palma for petitioner. Public Attorney's Office for private respondent. GRIO-AQUINO, J.:p Subject of this petition for review is the decision of the Court of Appeals (Seventeenth Division) in CA-G.R. No. 09149, affirming with modification the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Sixth (6th) Judicial Region, Branch LVI. Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, in Civil Case No. 1272, which was private respondent Alberto Nepales' action for specific performance of a contract of sale with damages against petitioner Norkis Distributors, Inc. The facts borne out by the record are as follows: Petitioner Norkis Distributors, Inc. (Norkis for brevity), is the distributor of Yamaha motorcycles in Negros Occidental with office in Bacolod City with Avelino Labajo as its Branch Manager. On September 20, 1979, private respondent Alberto Nepales bought from the Norkis-Bacolod branch a brand new Yamaha Wonderbike motorcycle Model YL2DX with Engine No. L2-329401K Frame No. NL2-0329401, Color Maroon, then displayed in the Norkis showroom. The price of P7,500.00 was payable by means of a Letter of Guaranty from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Kabankalan Branch, which Norkis' Branch Manager Labajo agreed to accept. Hence, credit was extended to Nepales for the price of the motorcycle payable by DBP upon release of his motorcycle loan. As security for the loan, Nepales would execute a

chattel mortgage on the motorcycle in favor of DBP. Branch Manager Labajo issued Norkis Sales Invoice No. 0120 (Exh.1) showing that the contract of sale of the motorcycle had been perfected. Nepales signed the sales invoice to signify his conformity with the terms of the sale. In the meantime, however, the motorcycle remained in Norkis' possession. On November 6, 1979, the motorcycle was registered in the Land Transportation Commission in the name of Alberto Nepales. A registration certificate (Exh. 2) in his name was issued by the Land Transportation Commission on November 6, 1979 (Exh. 2-b). The registration fees were paid by him, evidenced by an official receipt, Exhibit 3. On January 22, 1980, the motorcycle was delivered to a certain Julian Nepales who was allegedly the agent of Alberto Nepales but the latter denies it (p. 15, t.s.n., August 2, 1984). The record shows that Alberto and Julian Nepales presented the unit to DBP's Appraiser-Investigator Ernesto Arriesta at the DBP offices in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental Branch (p. 12, Rollo). The motorcycle met an accident on February 3, 1980 at Binalbagan, Negros Occidental. An investigation conducted by the DBP revealed that the unit was being driven by a certain Zacarias Payba at the time of the accident (p. 33, Rollo). The unit was a total wreck (p. 36, t.s.n., August 2,1984; p. 13, Rollo), was returned, and stored inside Norkis' warehouse. On March 20, 1980, DBP released the proceeds of private respondent's motorcycle loan to Norkis in the total sum of P7,500. As the price of the motorcycle later increased to P7,828 in March, 1980, Nepales paid the difference of P328 (p. 13, Rollo) and demanded the delivery of the motorcycle. When Norkis could not deliver, he filed an action for specific performance with damages against Norkis in the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Sixth (6th) Judicial Region, Branch LVI, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 1272. He alleged that Norkis failed to deliver the motorcycle which he purchased, thereby causing him damages. Norkis answered that the motorcycle had already been delivered to private respondent before the accident, hence, the risk of loss or damage had to be borne by him as owner of the unit. After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered a decision dated August 27, 1985 ruling in favor of private respondent (p. 28, Rollo.) thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants are ordered to pay solidarity to the plaintiff the present value of the motorcycle which was totally destroyed, plus interest equivalent to what the Kabankalan Sub-Branch of the Development Bank of the Philippines will have to charge the plaintiff on fits account, plus P50.00 per day from February 3, 1980 until full payment of the said present value of the motorcycle, plus P1,000.00 as exemplary damages, and costs of the litigation. In lieu of paying the present value of the motorcycle, the defendants can deliver to the plaintiff a brand-new motorcycle of the same brand, kind, and quality as the one which was totally destroyed in their possession last February 3, 1980. (pp. 28-29, Rollo.)

On appeal, the Court of appeals affirmed the appealed judgment on August 21, 1989, but deleted the award of damages "in the amount of Fifty (P50.00) Pesos a day from February 3, 1980 until payment of the present value of the damaged vehicle" (p35, Rollo). The Court of Appeals denied Norkis' motion for reconsideration. Hence, this Petition for Review. The principal issue in this case is who should bear the loss of the motorcycle. The answer to this question would depend on whether there had already been a transfer of ownership of the motorcycle to private respondent at the time it was destroyed. Norkis' theory is that:
. . . After the contract of sale has been perfected (Art. 1475) and even before delivery, that is, even before the ownership is transferred to the vendee, the risk of loss is shifted from the vendor to the vendee. Under Art. 1262, the obligation of the vendor to deliver a determinate thing becomes extinguished if the thing is lost by fortuitous event (Art. 1174), that is, without the fault or fraud of the vendor and before he has incurred in delay (Art. 11 65, par. 3). If the thing sold is generic, the loss or destruction does not extinguish the obligation (Art. 1263). A thing is determinate when it is particularly designated or physically segregated from all others of the same class (Art. 1460). Thus, the vendor becomes released from his obligation to deliver the determinate thing sold while the vendee's obligation to pay the price subsists. If the vendee had paid the price in advance the vendor may retain the same. The legal effect, therefore, is that the vendee assumes the risk of loss by fortuitous event (Art. 1262) after the perfection of the contract to the time of delivery. (Civil Code of the Philippines, Ambrosio Padilla, Vol. 5,1987 Ed., p. 87.)

Norkis concedes that there was no "actual" delivery of the vehicle. However, it insists that there was constructive delivery of the unit upon: (1) the issuance of the Sales Invoice No. 0120 (Exh. 1) in the name of the private respondent and the affixing of his signature thereon; (2) the registration of the vehicle on November 6, 1979 with the Land Transportation Commission in private respondent's name (Exh. 2); and (3) the issuance of official receipt (Exh. 3) for payment of registration fees (p. 33, Rollo). That argument is not well taken. As pointed out by the private respondent, the issuance of a sales invoice does not prove transfer of ownership of the thing sold to the buyer. An invoice is nothing more than a detailed statement of the nature, quantity and cost of the thing sold and has been considered not a bill of sale (Am. Jur. 2nd Ed., Vol. 67, p. 378). In all forms of delivery, it is necessary that the act of delivery whether constructive or actual, be coupled with the intention of delivering the thing. The act, without the intention, is insufficient (De Leon, Comments and Cases on Sales, 1978 Ed., citing Manresa, p. 94). When the motorcycle was registered by Norkis in the name of private respondent, Norkis did not intend yet to transfer the title or ownership to Nepales, but only to facilitate the execution of a chattel mortgage in favor of the DBP for the release of the buyer's motorcycle loan. The Letter of Guarantee (Exh. 5) issued by the DBP, reveals that the execution in its favor of a chattel mortgage

over the purchased vehicle is a pre-requisite for the approval of the buyer's loan. If Norkis would not accede to that arrangement, DBP would not approve private respondent's loan application and, consequently, there would be no sale. In other words, the critical factor in the different modes of effecting delivery, which gives legal effect to the act, is the actual intention of the vendor to deliver, and its acceptance by the vendee. Without that intention, there is no tradition (Abuan vs. Garcia, 14 SCRA 759). In the case of Addison vs. Felix and Tioco (38 Phil. 404, 408), this Court held:
The Code imposes upon the vendor the obligation to deliver the thing sold. The thing is considered to be delivered when it is "placed in the hands and possession of the vendee." (Civil Code, Art. 1462). It is true that the same article declares that the execution of a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, but, in order that this symbolic delivery may produce the effect of tradition, it is necessary that the vendor shall have had such control over the thing sold that, at the moment of the sale, its material delivery could have been made. It is not enough to confer upon the purchaser the ownership and the right of possession. The thing sold must be placed in his control. When there is no impediment whatever to prevent the thing sold passing into the tenancy of the purchaser by the sole will of the vendor, symbolic delivery through the execution of a public instrument is sufficient. But if notwithstanding the execution of the instrument, the purchaser cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of the thing and make use of it himself or through another in his name, because such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed by the interposition of another will, then fiction yields to reality-the delivery has riot been effects . (Emphasis supplied.)

The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the purpose of the execution of the sales invoice dated September 20, 1979 (Exh. B) and the registration of the vehicle in the name of plaintiff-appellee (private respondent) with the Land Registration Commission (Exhibit C) was not to transfer to Nepales the ownership and dominion over the motorcycle, but only to comply with the requirements of the Development Bank of the Philippines for processing private respondent's motorcycle loan. On March 20, 1980, before private respondent's loan was released and before he even paid Norkis, the motorcycle had already figured in an accident while driven by one Zacarias Payba. Payba was not shown by Norkis to be a representative or relative of private respondent. The latter's supposed relative, who allegedly took possession of the vehicle from Norkis did not explain how Payba got hold of the vehicle on February 3, 1980. Norkis' claim that Julian Nepales was acting as Alberto's agent when he allegedly took delivery of the motorcycle (p. 20, Appellants' Brief), is controverted by the latter. Alberto denied having authorized Julian Nepales to get the motorcycle from Norkis Distributors or to enter into any transaction with Norkis relative to said motorcycle. (p. 5, t.s.n., February 6, 1985). This circumstances more than amply rebut the disputable presumption of delivery upon which Norkis anchors its defense to Nepales' action (pp. 33-34, Rollo). Article 1496 of the Civil Code which provides that "in the absence of an express assumption of risk by the buyer, the things sold remain at seller's risk until the ownership thereof is transferred to the buyer," is applicable to this case, for there

was neither an actual nor constructive delivery of the thing sold, hence, the risk of loss should be borne by the seller, Norkis, which was still the owner and possessor of the motorcycle when it was wrecked. This is in accordance with the well-known doctrine of res perit domino. WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 09149, we deny the petition for review and hereby affirm the appealed decision, with costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

ATKINS, KROLL and CO., INC., petitioner, vs. B. CUA HIAN TEK, respondent. Ross Selph, Carrascoso and Janda for petitioner. Ponciano T. Castro for respondent. BENGZON, J.: Review of a Court of Appeals' decision. For its failure to deliver one thousand cartons of sardines, which it had sold to B. Cua Hian Tek, petitioner was sued, and after trial was ordered by the Manila court of first instance to Pay damages, which on appeal was reduced by the Court of Appeals to P3,240.15 representing unrealized profits. There was no such contract of sale, says petitioner, but only an option to buy, which was not enforceable for lack of consideration because in accordance with Art. 1479 of the New Civil Code "an accepted unilatateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promisor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price. Simple are the facts of this case: Dated September 13, 1951, petitioner sent to respondent a letter of the following tenor: Sir (s) /Madam: We are pleased to make you herewith the following firm offer, subject to reply by September 23, 1951: Quantity and Commodity: 400 Ctns. Luneta brand Sardines in Tomato Sauce 48/15-oz. Ovals at $8.25 Ctn. 300 Ctns. Luntea brand Sardines Natural 48/15 oz. talls at $6.25 Ct. 300 Ctns. Luneta brand Sardines in Tomato Sauce 100/5-oz. talls at $7.48 Ct.

Price(s): All prices C ad F Manila Cosular Fees of $6.00 to be added. Shipmet: Durig September/October from US Ports. Supplier: Atkins, Kroll & Co., Sa Frasisco, Cal. U.S.A. We are looking forward to receive your valued order and remain . Very truly yours, The Court of first instance and the Court of Appeals1 found that B. Cua Hian Tek accepted the offer unconditionally and delivered his letter of acceptance Exh. B on September 21, 1951. However, due to shortage of catch of sardines by the packers in California, Atkins Kroll & Co., failed to deliver the commodities it had offered for sale. There are other details to which reference shall not be made, as they touch the question whether the acceptance had been handed on time; and on that issue of Court of Appeals definitely found for plaintiff. Ayway, in presenting its case before this Court petitioner does not dispute such timely acceptance. It merely raises the point that the acceptance only created an option, which, lacking consideration, had no obligatory force. The offer Exh. A, petitioner argues, "was a promise to sell a determinate thing for a price certain. Upon its acceptance by respondent, the offer became an accepted unilateral promise to sell a determinate thing for price certain. Inasmuch as there was no consideration to support the promise to sell distinct from the price, it follows that under Art. 1479 aforequoted, the promise is not binding on the petitioner even if it was accepted by respondent." (p. 12 brief of petitioner.). The argument, maifestly assumes that only a unilateral promise arose when the offeree accepted. Such assumption is a mistake, because a bilateral cotract to sell and to buy was created upon acceptance. So much so that B. Cua Hian Tek could be sued, he had backed out after accepting, by refusing to get the sardines and/or to pay for their price. Indeed, the word "option" is found neither in the offer nor in the acceptance. On the copntrary Exh. B accepted "the firm offer for the sale" and adds, "the undersigned buyer has immediately filed an application for import license . . ." (Emphasis Ours.). Petitioner, however, insists the offer was a mere offer of option, because the "firm offer" Exh. A. was a continuing 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 withdrawn before acceptance, because it is admitted, there was no consideration for it.

ART. 1324. When the offerer has showed the offeree a certain period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any time before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is founded upon a consideration, as somnething paid or promissed. (n) (New Civil Code.). Ordinarily an offer to buy or sell may be withdrawn or countermanded before accepatnce, even though the 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. . . (77 Corpus Juris Secundum p. 636.). Furthermore, an option is unilateral: a promise to sell3 at the price fixed whenever the offeree should decide to exercise his option within the specified time. After accepting the promise and before he exercises his option, 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 accepeting herein petitioner's offer a bilateral promise to sell and to buy ensued, and the respondent ipso facto assumed the obligations of a purchaser. He did not just get the right subsequently to buy or not to buy. It was not a mere option then; it was bilalteral contract of sale. Lastly, even supposing that Exh. A granted an option which is not binding for lack of consideration, the authorities hold that . If the option is given without a consideration, it is a mere offer of a contract of sale, which is not binding until accepted. If, however, acceptance is made before a withdrawal, it constitutes a binding contract of sale, even though the option was not supported by a sufficient consideration. . . (77 Corpus Juris Secundum p. 652. See also 27 Ruling Case Law 339 and cases cited.). It can be taken for granted, as contended by the defendants, that the option contract was not valid for lack of consideration. But it was, at least, an offer to sell, which was accepted by letter, and of this acceptance 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 1262 of the Civil Code). (Zayco vs. Serra, 44 Phil. 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. This option-without-consideration idea was never mentioned in the answer. A Change of theory in the appellate courts is not permitted. In order that a question may be raised on appeal, it is essential that it be within the issues made by the parties in their pleadings. Consequently, when a party deliberately adopts a certain theory, and the case is tried and decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal because, to permit him to do so, would be unfair to the adverse party. (Rules of Court by Moran1957 Ed. Vol. I p.715 citing Agoncillo vs. Javier, 38 Phil. 424; American Express Company vs. Natividad, 46 Phil. 207; San Agustin vs. Barrios, 68 Phil. 465, 480; Toribio vs.

Dacasa, 55 Phil. 461.) . We must therefore hold, as the lower courts have held that there was a contract of sale between the parties. And as no legal excuse has been proven, the seller's failure to comply therewith gave around to an award for damages, which has been fixed by the Court of Appeals at P3,240.15-amount which petitioner does not dispute in this final instance. Consequently, the decision under review should be, and it is hereby affirmed, with cost against petitioner.

NICOLAS SANCHEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEVERINA RIGOS, defendant-appellant. Santiago F. Bautista for plaintiff-appellee. Jesus G. Villamar for defendant-appellant. CONCEPCION, C.J.:p Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to Us, upon the ground that it involves a question purely of law. The record shows that, on April 3, 1961, plaintiff Nicolas Sanchez and defendant Severina Rigos executed an instrument entitled "Option to Purchase," whereby Mrs. Rigos "agreed, promised and committed ... to sell" to Sanchez the sum of P1,510.00, a parcel of land situated in the barrios of Abar and Sibot, municipality of San Jose, province of Nueva Ecija, and more particularly described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-12528 of said province, within two (2) years from said date with the understanding that said option shall be deemed "terminated and elapsed," if "Sanchez shall fail to exercise his right to buy the property" within the stipulated period. Inasmuch as several tenders of payment of the sum of Pl,510.00, made by Sanchez within said period, were rejected by Mrs. Rigos, on March 12, 1963, the former deposited said amount with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija and commenced against the latter the present action, for specific performance and damages. After the filing of defendant's answer admitting some allegations of the complaint, denying other allegations thereof, and alleging, as special defense, that the contract between the parties "is a unilateral promise to sell, and the same being unsupported by any valuable consideration, by force of the New Civil Code, is null and void" on February 11, 1964, both parties, assisted by their respective counsel, jointly moved for a judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly,

on February 28, 1964, the lower court rendered judgment for Sanchez, ordering Mrs. Rigos to accept the sum judicially consigned by him and to execute, in his favor, the requisite deed of conveyance. Mrs. Rigos was, likewise, sentenced to pay P200.00, as attorney's fees, and other costs. Hence, this appeal by Mrs. Rigos. This case admittedly hinges on the proper application of Article 1479 of our Civil Code, which provides:
ART. 1479. A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally demandable. An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that, by virtue of the option under consideration, "defendant agreed and committed to sell" and "the plaintiff agreed and committed to buy" the land described in the option, copy of which was annexed to said pleading as Annex A thereof and is quoted on the margin. 1 Hence, plaintiff maintains that the promise contained in the contract is "reciprocally demandable," pursuant to the first paragraph of said Article 1479. Although defendant had really "agreed, promised and committed" herself to sell the land to the plaintiff, it is not true that the latter had, in turn, "agreed and committed himself " to buy said property. Said Annex A does not bear out plaintiff's allegation to this effect. What is more, since Annex A has been made "an integral part" of his complaint, the provisions of said instrument form part "and parcel" 2 of said pleading. The option did not impose upon plaintiff the obligation to purchase defendant's property. Annex A is not a "contract to buy and sell." It merely granted plaintiff an "option" to buy. And both parties so understood it, as indicated by the caption, "Option to Purchase," given by them to said instrument. Under the provisions thereof, the defendant "agreed, promised and committed" herself to sell the land therein described to the plaintiff for P1,510.00, but there is nothing in the contract to indicate that her aforementioned agreement, promise and undertaking is supported by a consideration "distinct from the price" stipulated for the sale of the land. Relying upon Article 1354 of our Civil Code, the lower court presumed the existence of said consideration, and this would seem to be the main factor that influenced its decision in plaintiff's favor. It should be noted, however, that: (1) Article 1354 applies to contracts in general, whereas the second paragraph of Article 1479 refers to "sales" in particular, and, more specifically, to "an accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell." In other words, Article 1479 is controlling in the case at bar. (2) In order that said unilateral promise may be "binding upon the promisor,

Article 1479 requires the concurrence of a condition, namely, that the promise be "supported by a consideration distinct from the price." Accordingly, the promisee can not compel the promisor to comply with the promise, unless the former establishes the existence of said distinct consideration. In other words, the promisee has the burden of proving such consideration. Plaintiff herein has not even alleged the existence thereof in his complaint. (3) Upon the other hand, defendant explicitly averred in her answer, and pleaded as a special defense, the absence of said consideration for her promise to sell and, by joining in the petition for a judgment on the pleadings, plaintiff has impliedly admitted the truth of said averment in defendant's answer. Indeed as early as March 14, 1908, it had been held, in Bauermann v. Casas, 3 that:
One who prays for judgment on the pleadings without offering proof as to the truth of his own allegations, and without giving the opposing party an opportunity to introduce evidence, must be understood to admit the truth of all the material and relevant allegations of the opposing party, and to rest his motion for judgment on those allegations taken together with such of his own as are admitted in the pleadings. (La Yebana Company vs. Sevilla, 9 Phil. 210). (Emphasis supplied.)

This view was reiterated in Evangelista v. De la Rosa 4 and Mercy's Incorporated v. Herminia Verde. 5 Squarely in point is Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 6 from which We quote:
The main contention of appellant is that the option granted to appellee to sell to it barge No. 10 for the sum of P30,000 under the terms stated above has no legal effect because it is not supported by any consideration and in support thereof it invokes article 1479 of the new Civil Code. The article provides: "ART. 1479. A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally demandable. An accepted unilateral promise to buy or sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promisor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price." On the other hand, Appellee contends that, even granting that the "offer of option" is not supported by any consideration, that option became binding on appellant when the appellee gave notice to it of its acceptance, and that having accepted it within the period of option, the offer can no longer be withdrawn and in any event such withdrawal is ineffective. In support this contention, appellee invokes article 1324 of the Civil Code which provides: "ART. 1324. When the offerer has allowed the offeree a certain period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn any time before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is founded upon consideration as something paid or promised." There is no question that under article 1479 of the new Civil Code "an option to sell," or "a promise to buy or to sell," as used in said article, to be valid must be "supported by a consideration distinct from the price." This is clearly inferred from the context of said article that a unilateral promise to buy or to sell, even if accepted, is only binding if

supported by consideration. In other words, "an accepted unilateral promise can only have a binding effect if supported by a consideration which means that the option can still be withdrawn, even if accepted, if the same is not supported by any consideration. It is not disputed that the option is without consideration. It can therefore be withdrawn notwithstanding the acceptance of it by appellee. It is true that under article 1324 of the new Civil Code, the general rule regarding offer and acceptance is that, when the offerer gives to the offeree a certain period to accept, "the offer may be withdrawn at any time before acceptance" except when the option is founded upon consideration, but this general rule must be interpreted as modified by the provision of article 1479 above referred to, which applies to "a promise to buy and sell" specifically. As already stated, this rule requires that a promise to sell to be valid must be supported by a consideration distinct from the price. We are not oblivious of the existence of American authorities which hold that an offer, once accepted, cannot be withdrawn, regardless of whether it is supported or not by a consideration (12 Am. Jur. 528). These authorities, we note, uphold the general rule applicable to offer and acceptance as contained in our new Civil Code. But we are prevented from applying them in view of the specific provision embodied in article 1479. While under the "offer of option" in question appellant has assumed a clear obligation to sell its barge to appellee and the option has been exercised in accordance with its terms, and there appears to be no valid or justifiable reason for appellant to withdraw its offer, this Court cannot adopt a different attitude because the law on the matter is clear. Our imperative duty is to apply it unless modified by Congress.

However, this Court itself, in the case of Atkins, Kroll and Co., Inc. v. Cua Hian Tek, 8 decided later that Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 9 saw no distinction between Articles 1324 and 1479 of the Civil Code and applied the former where a unilateral promise to sell similar to the one sued upon here was involved, treating such promise as an option which, although not binding as a contract in itself for lack of a separate consideration, nevertheless generated a bilateral contract of purchase and sale upon acceptance. Speaking through Associate Justice, later Chief Justice, Cesar Bengzon, this Court said:
Furthermore, an option is unilateral: a promise to sell at the price fixed whenever the offeree should decide to exercise his option within the specified time. After accepting the promise and before he exercises his option, the holder of the option is not bound to buy. He is free either to buy or not to buy later. In this case, however, upon accepting herein petitioner's offer a bilateral promise to sell and to buy ensued, and the respondent ipso facto assumed the obligation of a purchaser. He did not just get the right subsequently to buy or not to buy. It was not a mere option then; it was a bilateral contract of sale. Lastly, even supposing that Exh. A granted an option which is not binding for lack of consideration, the authorities hold that: "If the option is given without a consideration, it is a mere offer of a contract of sale, which is not binding until accepted. If, however, acceptance is made before a withdrawal, it constitutes a binding contract of sale, even though the option was not supported by a sufficient consideration. ... . (77 Corpus Juris Secundum, p. 652. See also 27 Ruling Case Law 339 and cases cited.) "It can be taken for granted, as contended by the defendant, that the option contract was not valid for lack of consideration. But it was, at least, an offer to sell, which was accepted by letter, and of the acceptance the offerer had knowledge before said offer was withdrawn. The concurrence of both acts the

offer and the acceptance could at all events have generated a contract, if none there was before (arts. 1254 and 1262 of the Civil Code)." (Zayco vs. Serra, 44 Phil. 331.)

In other words, since there may be no valid contract without a cause or consideration, the promisor is not bound by his promise and may, accordingly, withdraw it. Pending notice of its withdrawal, his accepted promise partakes, however, of the nature of an offer to sell which, if accepted, results in a perfected contract of sale. This view has the advantage of avoiding a conflict between Articles 1324 on the general principles on contracts and 1479 on sales of the Civil Code, in line with the cardinal rule of statutory construction that, in construing different provisions of one and the same law or code, such interpretation should be favored as will reconcile or harmonize said provisions and avoid a conflict between the same. Indeed, the presumption is that, in the process of drafting the Code, its author has maintained a consistent philosophy or position. Moreover, the decision in Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 10 holding that Art. 1324 is modified by Art. 1479 of the Civil Code, in effect, considers the latter as an exception to the former, and exceptions are not favored, unless the intention to the contrary is clear, and it is not so, insofar as said two (2) articles are concerned. What is more, the reference, in both the second paragraph of Art. 1479 and Art. 1324, to an option or promise supported by or founded upon a consideration, strongly suggests that the two (2) provisions intended to enforce or implement the same principle. Upon mature deliberation, the Court is of the considered opinion that it should, as it hereby reiterates the doctrine laid down in the Atkins, Kroll & Co. case, and that, insofar as inconsistent therewith, the view adhered to in the Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. case should be deemed abandoned or modified. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against defendant-appellant Severina Rigos. It is so ordered.

SPOUSES TRINIDAD AND EPIFANIO NATINO, petitioners, vs. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE RURAL BANK OF AGUILAR, INC. AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF EX-OFFICIO OF PANGASINAN, respondents. Jose P. Villamor for petitioners. Oscar A. Benzon for private respondents. Bitty G. Viliran for Rural Bank of Aguilar, Inc.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:p Unsatisfied with the decision of 4 June 1985 and the resolution of 23 December 1985 of the then Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) in A.C.-G.R. CV No. 69539 1 which, respectively, reversed the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch II, of 1 December 1981 in Civil Case No. 15573, and denied the motion for the reconsideration of the 4 June 1985 decision, petitioners filed with this Court the instant petition to seek reversal thereof. They submit one principal issue: whether or not the conclusion drawn by the Intermediate Appellate Court from proven facts is correct. 2 The following facts are not disputed: On 12 October 1970 petitioners executed a real estate mortgage in favor of respondent bank as security for a loan of P2,000.00. Petitioners failed to pay the loan on due date. The bank applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale on 11 December 1974 the respondent bank was the highest and winning bidder with a bid of P2,945.11. A certificate of sale was executed in its favor by the sheriff and the same was registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds on 29 January 1975. The certificate of sale, a copy of which was furnished the petitioners by registered mail, expressly provided that the redemption period shall be two years from the registration thereof. Since no redemption was made by petitioners within the two-year period, which expired on 29 January 1977, the sheriff issued a Final Deed of Sale on 15 February 1977. Petitioners, however, claimed that they were granted by respondent bank an extension of the redemption period; but the latter denied it. On 22 November 1979 respondent bank file a petition for a writ of possession, which petitioners later opposed on the ground that they had consigned the redemption money of P4,000.00 on 12 December 1979. The court rejected the opposition and issued the writ of possession. However, to prevent its execution, petitioners instituted with the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan a complaint against respondent bank and the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff for the annulment of the aforementioned final deed of sale and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 15573 which was raffled to Branch II thereof. In their complaint petitioners alleged that the final deed of sale was prematurely issued since they were granted an extension of time to redeem the property. In resolving the issue of extension of the redemption period, the trial court, in its Decision of 1 December 1981, made the following findings and conclusion:
xxx xxx xxx From the bank's evidence, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiffs who are personally

known to the president and manager herself, and from whom she had to hire trucks, would not have made any move or offer to redeem the property within the redemption period. The presumption is that they exercised ordinary care of their concerns (Sc. 5 (d), Rule 131, Rules of Court, Cabigao vs. Lim 50 Phil. 844). If indeed, the plaintiffs made no such offer during the redemption period, the defendant bank should have presented evidence rebutting the plaintiffs' evidence. But it did not. While the plaintiff testified that the tender was made to Mr. Salgado, loan clerk, and Mr. Madrid, Acting Manager of the Bank and also board members Dr. Jing Zarate and Mr. Rosario, none of them were presented to rebut plaintiffs' evidence. Hence, the presumption that if their testimony were produced, it would be adverse to the defendant bank under Sec. 5(e) Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, would apply. Furthermore, the very evidence of the defendant bank shows that there was indeed an extension of the period to redeem the property. The statutory period of redemption granted the mortgagor in the certificate of sale registered on January 29, 1975 was 2 years. The period should have terminated on January 29, 1977. However, the Sheriff's Certificate of Final sale was only executed on February 15, 1977 and registered only on November 14, 1979 which registration date is the effective date of the confirmation of the sale which cuts off redemption. Such extension of nearly 3 years strengthens the plaintiffs' claim that indeed, there was an agreement to extend the redemption date. The plaintiffs' evidence has shown that there was an agreement between them and the defendant bank through its personnel and its president and manager, acting as its agents to extend the period for redemption for the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs were not given a specific time to pay and redeem but were given by the President and Manager of the bank such time when their means permit them to do so. This created an obligation with a period under Art. 1180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides: Art. 1180. When the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so, the obligation shall be deemed to be one with a period, subject to the provisions of Article 1197. This does not mean that the condition was exclusively dependent of the will of the plaintiffs, for they had already promised payment. If therefore became necessary, under Article 1197 for the Court to fix the term in order that the condition may be fulfilled. Any action to recover before this is done is considered premature (Patents vs. Omega, 93 Phil. 218). That agreement or contract entered into between the President and Manager of the bank was not in writing is of no moment since under Article 1315 of the Civil Code, "contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law." The defendant's claim that the agreement must be in writing citing the ruling in the case of Pornellosa vs. Land Tenure Administration, 1 SCRA 375, only applies to executory contracts, not to those either totally or partially performed, (Inigo vs. Estate of Maloto, 21 SCRA 246). In this case, the bank had already partially performed its obligation thereunder by extending the period redemption from January 29, 1977 to November 14, 1979. The agreement does not novate the original contract of mortgage but only changes one of its conditions, that which concerns the period of redemption. The period of redemption may be extended by the parties under special circumstances (Lichauco vs. Olegario, 43 Phil. 540, 542). This the parties may do, since the right of the mortgagee to demand compliance within the 2 year period of redemption maybe waived, unless the waiver is contrary to the public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law." None of the inhibitions enumerated are present in

this case. Hence, the action of the defendant bank in securing the Sheriffs Final Sale prior to the fixing of the period within which the plaintiffs had to pay was not in order by reason of the extension of the period of redemption without a term. Not being in order, the period for redemption by the plaintiffs still exists but has to be set. 3

and on the basis thereof, decreed to (a) annul the Sheriffs Final Deed of Sale, dated 15 February 1977 and its registration of 17 March 1979, (b) fix the period of redemption to ninety (90) days from receipt of the decision by petitioners, (c) order petitioners to pay the respondent bank, within ninety (90) days from receipt of the decision the amount of P2,945.11, the purchase price, with 1% interest per month from 11 December 1974 to 14 December 1979, together with any amount representing assessment or taxes which the bank may have paid after 11 December 1974, with interest thereon at 1% per month up to 14 December 1979, (d) order the Bank to receive and credit the petitioners with such amounts, restore petitioners to the property and to deliver to them a certificate of redemption, and to pay petitioners the sum of P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs. 4 Respondent bank appealed from said Decision to the then Intermediate Appellate Court which docketed the appeal as C.A.-G.R. CV No. 69539. In support of its appeal, respondent bank assigned the following errors:
-ITHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE OFFERS BY THE APPELLEES TO THE APPELLANTS WERE MADE AFTER THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION HAD ALREADY EXPIRED AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, WERE MADE ONLY AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF FINAL SALE BY THE SHERIFF. -IITHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANTS GRANTED THE APPELLEES AN EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD FOR THE REDEMPTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD DURING THE FORECLOSURE SALE. -IIITHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE FAVORS THE APPELLEES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THEM IS THE SOLE TESTIMONY OF EPIFANIO NATINO, WHICH IS NOT ONLY UNCORROBORATED, BUT IS EVEN CONTRARY TO THE IMPORT OF HIS DECLARATIONS AND ADMISSIONS MADE IN OPEN COURT; AS AGAINST THE TESTIMONY OF THE APPELLANTS' WITNESS WHICH IS CORROBORATED, NOT ONLY BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BUT EVEN BY THE IMPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES' TESTIMONY. -IVTHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT REJECTING THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFAPPELLEE WHICH DID NOT PROVE AN OFFER TO REDEEM WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD IN AN AUTHENTIC MANNER AS REQUIRED BY THE

LAW, RULES AND JURISPRUDENCE. -VTHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT REJECTING THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFAPPELLEE ON THE ALLEGED EXTENSION OF THE REDEMPTION PERIOD INASMUCH AS IT IS NOT IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT OR AT LEAST IN AN AUTHENTIC WRITING. -VITHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPLYING ARTICLES 1180 AND 1197 OF THE CIVIL CODE, BOTH OF WHICH HAS NO RELEVANCE OR MATERIALITY TO THE CASE AT BAR. -VIIASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT SOME OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE APPELLANT BANK MANIFESTED TO THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE THAT THEY CAN RECOVER THE LAND IN QUESTION, AS TESTIFIED BY THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SUCH OFFICERS ACTED AS AGENTS OF THE APPELLANT-BANK. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT ONLY THE ACTION BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BANK CAN BIND THE LATTER. -VIIITHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF FINAL SALE WAS NOT IN ORDER AND IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLEES MAY STILL REDEEM THE PROPERTY BY PAYING THE PURCHASE PRICE PLUS 1% INTEREST PER MONTH, DESPITE THE LAPSE OF THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION. -IXTHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE CASE IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANTS AND CONSEQUENTLY ERRED IN NOT AWARDING DAMAGES TO THE APPELLANTS HEREIN. 5

Herein petitioners, as appellees, did not file their Brief. In its Decision of 4 June 1985, the Intermediate Appellate Court disposed of the assigned errors as follows:
xxx xxx xxx The bank has assigned eight (8) errors in the decision but the determinants are the first and the second. But before going into their merits We must take note of the failure of the appellees to file their brief. Appellees did not file any motion for reconsideration. It has to be stated there that, generally, appellee's failure to file brief is considered as equivalent to a confession of error, warranting, although not necessarily requiring a reversal, but any doubt entertained by the appellate court as to what disposition should be made of the case will be resolved against the appellee (4 CJS 1832, cited in Francisco, the Revised Rules of Court Civil Procedure, Vol. III, p. 638) Re the first error

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE OFFERS BY THE APPELLEES TO THE APPELLANTS WERE MADE AFTER THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION HAD ALREADY EXPIRED AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, WERE MADE ONLY AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF FINAL SALE BY THE SHERIFF. It will take better proofs than appellees' mere declaration for the Court to believe that they had tendered the redemption money within the redemption period which was refused by the bank. There would have been no valid reason for a refusal; it is an obligation imposed by law on every purchaser at public auction that admits of redemption, to accept tender of redemption money. And should there be refusal, the correlative duty of the mortgagor is clear: he must deposit the money with the sheriff. The evidence does not show that appellees complied with this duty. All that was shown by way of compliance was the deposit made with the Clerk of Court of the sum of P4,000.00. This deposit is a belated and last ditch attempt to exercise a right that had long expired. It was made only on December 12, 1979, or after the redemption period of two (2) years from January 29, 1977 when the sheriffs certificate of sale was registered and after sheriff's final sale which was registered on November 14, 1979. And, it is clear that the late deposit was utilized to defeat the bank's vested right which it sought to enforce by its petition for a writ of possession. The lower court correctly ruled against any validity to it. The right to redeem becomes functus officio on the date of its expiry, and its exercise after the period is not really one of redemption but a repurchase. Distinction must be made because redemption is by force of law; the purchaser at public auction is bound to accept redemption. Repurchase however of foreclosed property, after redemption period, imposes no such obligation. After expiry, the purchaser may or may not re-sell the property but no law will compel him to do so, And, he is not bound by the bid price; it is entirely within his discretion to set a higher price, for after all, the property already belongs to him as owner. This brings Us to the second error THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANTS GRANTED THE APPELLEES AN EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD FOR THE REDEMPTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD DURING THE FORECLOSURE SALE. Appellees' main premise is the alleged assurances of the bank's officers that they could redeem the property. From the testimony of Epifanio Natino, however, it is clear that these assurances were given before expiry of redemption (tsn, pp. 15 & 16). Such assurances were not at all necessary since the right to redeem was still in existence. Those assurances however could not and did not extend beyond the redemption period. It seems clear from testimony elicited on cross-examination of the president and manager of the bank that the latter offered to re-sell the property for P30,000.00 but after the petition for a writ of possession had already been filed, and well after expiry of the period to redeem. Appellants failed to accept the offer; they deposited only P4,000.00. There was therefore no meeting of the minds, and accordingly, appellants may no longer be heard. 6

and in the light thereof, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the appealed decision. Their motion to reconsider the same having been denied in the resolution of 23 December 1985, 7 petitioners have come to Us on appeal by certiorari raising the sole issue stated in the beginning of this decision.

We find the petition to be devoid of merit. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the conclusion made by the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court from the proven facts is wrong. We agree with said Court, and, therefore, set aside the contrary conclusion of the trial court, that the attempts to redeem the property were done after the expiration of the redemption period and that no extension of that period was granted to petitioners. The contrary conclusion made by the trial court is drawn from inferences which are not supported by adequate or sufficient facts or is based on erroneous assumptions. We note that its decision is remarkably silent as to the dates when petitioner Epifanio Natino went to the respondent bank to talk with a bank personnel to offer to pay the loan. If indeed the offer was made within the redemption period, but the Bank refused to accept the redemption money, petitioners should have made the tender to the sheriff who made the sale and who then had the duty to accept the tender and execute the certificate of redemption. (Enage vs. Vda. de Hijos de Escano, 38 Phil. 657, cited in II MORAN, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1979 Ed., pp. 326-327). There was no such tender to the Sheriff. Again, if indeed this occurred during the redemption period, then, as correctly pointed out by respondent IAC, it was not necessary to ask for extension of the period to redeem. In respect to the alleged assurance given by Mrs. Brodeth, the President and Manager of the Bank, sometime in May of 1978 to the effect that petitioners can redeem the property as soon as they have the money, it is obvious that this took place after the expiration of the redemption period. As correctly pointed out by the respondent IAC, this could only relate to the matter of resale of the property, not redemption. Furthermore, even assuming for the sake of argument that Mrs. Brodeth gave the assurance, the same could bind the bank only if its Board of Directors approved or ratified it. No evidence was offered to prove such action by the Board. Moreover, Mrs. Brodeth denied that during that meeting in May 1978 she made the assurance; according to her petitioner Epifanio neither mentioned the loan nor offered to redeem, although earlier he was told that to 'redeem" the property he should pay P30,000.00. The latter statement supports the conclusion of respondent IAC that this was the Bank's offer for the re-sell (not redemption of the property), which, logically took place after the expiration of the redemption period. Even if Mrs. Brodeth is to be understood to have promised to allow the petitioners to buy the property at any time they have the money, the Bank was not bound by the promise not only because it was not approved or ratified by the Board of Directors but also because, and more decisively, it was a promise unsupported by a consideration distinct from the re-purchase price.

The second paragraph of Article 1479 of the Civil Code expressly provides:
xxx xxx xxx An accepted unilateral. promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissory if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price.

Thus in Rural Bank of Paraaque Inc. vs. Remolado, et al., 8 a commitment by the bank to resell a property, within a specified period, although accepted by the party in whose favor it was made, was considered an option not supported by a consideration distinct from the price and, therefore, not binding upon the promissor. Pursuant to Southwestern Sugar and Molasses Co. vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company, 9 it was void. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the Petitioners. SO ORDERED.

YAO KA SIN TRADING, owned and operated by YAO KA SIN, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PRIME WHITE CEMENT CORPORATION, represented by its President-Chairman, CONSTANCIO B. MALAGNA, respondents. DAVIDE, JR., J.: Assailed in this petition for review is the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No. 61072-R, 1 promulgated on 21 December 1979, reversing the decision 2 of the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Leyte dated 20 November 1975 in Civil Case No. 5064 entitled "Yao Ka Sin Trading versus Prime White Cement Corporation." The root of this controversy is the undated letter-offer of Constancio B. Maglana, President and Chairman of the Board of private respondent Prime White Cement Corporation, hereinafter referred to as PWCC, to Yao Ka Sin Trading, hereinafter referred to as YKS, which describes itself as "a business concern of single proprietorship," 3 and is represented by its manager, Mr. Henry Yao; the letter reads as follows:
PRIME WHITE CEMENT CORPORATION 602 Cardinal Life Building Herran Street, Manila Yao Ka Sin Tacloban City

Gentlemen: We have the pleasure to submit hereby our firm offer to you under the following quotations, terms, and conditions, to wit: 1). Commodity Prime White Cement 2). Price At your option: a) P24.30 per 94 lbs. bag net, FOB Cebu City; and b) P23.30 per 94 lbs. bag net, FOB Asturias Cebu. 3). Quality As fully specified in certificate No. 224-73 by Bureau of Public Works, Republic of the Philippines. 4). Quantity Forty-five Thousand (45,000) bags at 94 lbs. net per bag withdrawable in guaranteed monthly quantity of Fifteen Thousand (15,000) bags minimum effective from June, 1973 to August 1973. 5). Delivery Schedule Shipment be made within four (4) days upon receipt of your shipping instruction. 6). Bag/Container a) All be made of Standard Kraft (water resistant paper, 4 ply, with bursting strength of 220 pounds, and b) Breakage allowance additional four percent (4%) over the quantity of each shipment. 7). Terms of Payment Down payment of PESOS: TWO HUNDRED FORTY THREE THOUSAND (P243,000.00) payable on the signing of this contract and the balance to be paid upon presentation of corresponding shipping documents. It is understood that in the event of a delay in our shipment, you hold the option to discount any price differential resulting from a lower market price vis-a-vis the contract price. In addition, grant (sic) you the option to extend this contract until the complete delivery of Forty Five Thousand (45,000) bags of 94 lbs. each is made by us. You are also hereby granted the option to renew this contract under the same price, terms and conditions. Please countersign on the space provided for below as your acknowledgement and confirmation of the above transaction. Thank You. Very truly yours, PRIME WHITE CEMENT CORPORATION BY: (SGD) CONSTANCIO B. MAGLANA President & Chairman CONFORME: YAO KA SIN TRADING BY: (SGD) HENRY YAO WITNESSES: (SGD) T. CATINDIG (SGD) ERNESTO LIM RECEIVED from Mr. Henry Yao of Yao Ka Sin Trading, in pursuance of the above offer, the sum of Pesos: TWO HUNDRED FORTY THREE THOUSAND ONLY (P243,000.00) in the form of Producers' Bank of the Philippines Check No. C-153576 dated June 7, 1973.

PRIME BY:

WHITE

CEMENT

CORPORATION

(SGD) CONSTANCIO B. MAGLANA President & Chairman 4

This letter-offer, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit "A", was prepared, typed and signed on 7 June 1973 in the office of Mr. Teodoro Catindig, Senior VicePresident of the Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (Solid Bank). 5 The principal issue raised in this case is whether or not the aforesaid letter-offer, as accepted by YKS, is a contract that binds the PWCC. The trial court rule in favor of the petitioner, but the respondent Court held otherwise. The records disclose the following material operative facts: In its meeting in Cebu City on 30 June 1973, or twenty-three (23) days after the signing of Exhibit "A", the Board of Directors of PWCC disapproved the same; the rejection is evidenced by the following Minutes (Exhibit "10"):
the 10,000 bags of white cement sold to Yao Ka Sin Trading is sold not because of the alledged letter-contract adhered to by them, but must be understood as a new and separate contract, and has in no way to do with the letter-offer which they (sic) as consummated is by this resolution totally disapproved and is unacceptable to the corporation.

On 5 July 1973, PWCC wrote a letter (Exhibit "1") to YKS informing it of the disapproval of Exhibit "A". Pursuant, however, to its decision with respect to the 10,000 bags of cement, it is issued the corresponding Delivery Order (Exhibit "4") and Official Receipt No. 0394 (Exhibit "5") for the payment of the same in the amount of P243,000.00 This is the same amount received and acknowledged by Maglana in Exhibit "A". YKS accepted without protest both the Delivery and Official Receipts. While YKS denied having received a copy of Exhibit "1", it was established that the original thereof was shown to Mr. Henry Yao; since no one would sign a receipt for it, the original was left at the latter's office and this fact was duly noted in Exhibit "1" (Exhibit "l-A"). On 4 August 1973, PWCC wrote a letter (Exhibit "2") to YKS in answer to the latter's 4 August 1973 letter stating that it is "withdrawing or taking delivery of not less than 10,000 bags of white cement on August 6-7, 1973 at Asturias, Cebu, thru M/V Taurus." In said reply, PWCC reminded YKS of its (PWCC's) 5 July 1973 letter (Exhibit "1") and told the latter that PWCC "only committed to you and which you correspondingly paid 10,000 bags of white cement of which 4,150 bags were already delivered to you as of August 11, 1973. 6 Unfortunately, no copy of the said 4 August 1973 letter of YKS was presented in evidence. On 21 August 1973, PWCC wrote another letter (Exhibit "3") 7 to YKS in reply to the latter's letter of 15 August 1973. Enclosed in the reply was a copy of Exhibit

"2". While the records reveal that YKS received this reply also on 21 August 1973 (Exhibit "3" "A"), 8 it still denied having received it. Likewise, no copy of the socalled 15 August 1973 letter was presented in evidence. On 10 September 1973, YKS, through Henry Yao, wrote a letter 9 to PWCC as a follow-up to the letter of 15 August 1973; YKS insisted on the delivery of 45,030 bags of white cement. 10 On 12 September 1973, Henry Yao sent a letter (Exhibit "G") to PWCC calling the latter's attention to the statement of delivery dated 24 August 1973, particularly the price change from P23.30 to P24.30 per 94 lbs. bag net FOB Asturias, Cebu. 11 On 2 November 1973, YKS sent a telegram (Exhibit "C") 12 to PWCC insisting on the full compliance with the terms of Exhibit "A" and informing the latter that it is exercising the option therein stipulated. On 3 November 1973, YKS sent to PWCC a letter (Exhibit "D") as a follow-up to the 2 November 1973 telegram, but this was returned to sender as unclaimed. 13 As of 7 December 1973, PWCC had delivered only 9,775 bags of white cement. On 9 February 1974, YKS wrote PWCC a letter (Exhibit "H") requesting, for the last time, compliance by the latter with its obligation under Exhibit "A". 14 On 27 February 1974, PWCC sent an answer (Exhibit "7") to the aforementioned letter of 9 February 1974; PWCC reiterated the unenforceability of Exhibit "A". 15 On 4 March 1974, YKS filed with the then Court of First Instance of Leyte a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against PWCC. The complaint 16 was based on Exhibit "A" and was docketed as Civil Case No. 5064. In its Answer with Counterclaim 17 filed on 1 July 1974, PWCC denied under oath the material averments in the complaint and alleged that: (a) YKS "has no legal personality to sue having no legal personality even by fiction to represent itself;" (b) Mr. Maglana, its President and Chairman, was lured into signing Exhibit "A"; (c) such signing was subject to the condition that Exhibit "A" be approved by the Board of Directors of PWCC, as corporate commitments are made through it; (d) the latter disapproved it, hence Exhibit "A" was never consummated and is not enforceable against PWCC; (e) it agreed to sell 10,000 bags of white cement, not under Exhibit "A", but under a separate contract prepared by the Board; (f) the rejection by the Board of Exhibit "A" was made known to YKS through various letters sent to it, copies of which were attached to the Answer as Annexes 1, 2 and 3; 18 (g) YKS knew, per Delivery Order 19 and Official Receipt 20 issued by PWCC, that only 10;000 bags were sold to it without any terms or conditions, at P24.30 per bag FOB Asturias, Cebu; (h) YKS is solely to blame for the failure to take complete delivery of 10,000 bags for it did not send its boat or truck to PWCC's plant; and (i) YKS has, therefore, no cause of action.

In its Counterclaim, PWCC asks for moral damages in the amount of not less than P10,000.00, exemplary damages in the sum of P500,000.00 and attorney's fees in the sum of P10,000.00. On 24 July 1974, YKS filed its Answer to the Counterclaim. 21 Issues having been joined, the trial court conducted a pre-trial. 22 On that occasion, the parties admitted that according to the By-Laws of PWCC, the Chairman of the Board, who is also the President of the corporation, "has the power to execute and sign, for and in behalf of the corporation, all contracts or agreements which the corporation enters into," subject to the qualification that "all the president's actuations, prior to and after he had signed and executed said contracts, shall be given to the board of directors of defendant Corporation." Furthermore, it was likewise stated for the record "that the corporation is a semisubsidiary of the government because of the NIDC participation in the same, and that all contracts of the corporation should meet the approval of the NIDC and/or the PNB Board because of an exposure and financial involvement of around P10 million therein. 23 During the trial, PWCC presented evidence to prove that Exhibit "A" is not binding upon it because Mr. Maglana was not authorized to make the offer and sign the contract in behalf of the corporation. Per its By-Laws (Exhibit "8"), only the Board of Directors has the power . . . (7) To enter into (sic) agreement or contract of any kind with any person in the name and for and in behalf of the corporation through its President, subject only to the declared objects and purpose of the corporation and the existing provisions of law. 24 Among the powers of the President is "to operate and conduct the business of the corporation according to his own judgment and discretion, whenever the same is not expressly limited by such orders, directives or resolutions." 25 Per standard practice of the corporation, contracts should first pass through the marketing and intelligence unit before they are finalized. Because of its interest in the PWCC, the NIDC, through its comptroller, goes over contracts involving funds of and white cement produced by the PWCC. Finally, among the duties of its legal counsel is to review proposed contracts before they are submitted to the Board. While the president. may be tasked with the preparation of a contract, it must first pass through the legal counsel and the comptroller of the corporation. 26 On 20 November 1975, after trial on the merits, the court handed down its decision in favor of herein petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: (1) Ordering defendant: to complete the delivery of 45,000 bags of prime white cement at 94 lbs. net per bag at the price agreed, with a breakage allowance of empty bags at 4% over the quantity agreed; (2) Ordering defendant to pay P50,000.00, as moral damages; P5,000.00 as exemplary damages; P3,000.00 as attorney's fees; and the costs of these proceedings.

SO ORDERED. 27

In disregarding PWCC's theory, the trial court interpreted the provision of the ByLaws granting its Board of Directors the power to enter into an agreement or contract of any kind with any person through the President, to mean that the latter may enter into such contract or agreement at any time and that the same is not subject to the ratification of the board of directors but "subject only to the declared objects and purpose of the corporation and existing laws." It then concluded:
It is obvious therefore, that it is not the whole membership of the board of directors who actually enters into any contract with any person in the name and for and in behalf of the corporation, but only its president. It is likewise crystal clear that this automatic representation of the board by the president is limited only by the "declared objects and purpose of the corporation and existing provisions of law." 28

It likewise interpreted the provision on the power of the president to "operate and conduct the business of the corporation according to the orders, directives or resolutions of the board of directors and according to his own judgment and discretion whenever the same is not expressly limited by such orders, directives and resolutions," to mean that the president can operate and conduct the business of the corporation according to his own judgment and discretion as long as it is not expressly limited by the orders, directives or resolutions of the board of directors. 29 The trial court found no evidence that the board had set a prior limitation upon the exercise of such judgment and discretion; it further ruled that the By-Laws, does not require that Exhibit "A" be approved by the Board of Directors. Finally, in the light of the Chairman's power to "execute and sign for and in behalf of the corporation all contracts or agreements which the corporation may enter into" (Exhibit "I-1"), it concluded that Mr. Maglana merely followed the By-Laws "presumably both as president and chairman of the board thereof." 30 Hence, Exhibit "A" was validly entered into by Maglana and thus binds the corporation. The trial court, however, ruled that the option to sell is not valid because it is not supported by any consideration distinct from the price; it was exercised before compliance with the original contract by PWCC; and the repudiation of the original contract by PWCC was deemed a withdrawal of the option before acceptance by the petitioner. Both parties appealed from the said decision to the respondent Court of Appeals before which petitioner presented the following Assignment of Errors:
I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE OPTION TO RENEW THE CONTRACT OF SALE IS NOT ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THE OPTION WAS MADE EVEN BEFORE THE COMPLIANCE OF (sic) THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT BY DEFENDANT AND THAT DEFENDANT'S PROMISE TO SELL IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CONSIDERATION DISTINCT FROM THE PRICE. II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT AWARDING TO THE PLAINTIFF ACTUAL DAMAGES, SUFFICIENT EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND PROVEN DURING THE TRIAL." 31

while the private respondent cited the following errors:

I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXHIBIT "A" IS A VALID CONTRACT OR PLAINTIFF CAN CLAIM THAT THE PROPOSED LETTER-CONTRACT, EXHIBIT "A" IS LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE, AS THE SAME IS A MERE UNACCEPTED PROPOSAL, NOT HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED TO BE ENTERED INTO OR LATER ON RATIFIED BY THE DEFENDANTS BOARD OF DIRECTORS; IN FACT EXHIBIT "A" WAS TOTALLY REJECTED AND DISAPPROVED IN TOTO BY THE DEFENDANT'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN CLEAR, PLAIN LANGUAGE AND DULY INFORMED AND TRANSMITTED TO PLAINTIFF. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF CAN LEGALLY UTILIZE THE COURTS AS THE FORUM TO GIVE LIFE AND VALIDITY TO A TOTALLY UNENFORCEABLE OR NON-EXISTING CONTRACT. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING YAO KA SIN TO IMPUGN AND CONTRADICT HIS VERY OWN ACTUATIONS AND REPUDIATE HIS ACCEPTANCE AND RECEIPTS OF BENEFITS FROM THE COUNTER-OFFER OF DEFENDANT FOR 10,000 BAGS OF CEMENT ONLY, UNDER THE PRICE, TERMS AND CONDITIONS TOTALLY FOREIGN TO AND WHOLLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH APPEAR IN EXHIBIT "A". IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING DEFENDANT'S COUNTER-CLAIMS AS THE SAME ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND INDUBITABLE EVIDENCE. 32

In its decision 33 promulgated on 21 December 1979, the respondent Court reversed the decision of the trial court, thus:
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED and set aside, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with costs. Plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant corporation P25,000.00 exemplary damages, and P10,000.00 attorney's fees. SO ORDERED.

Such conclusion is based on its findings, to wit:

Before resolving the issue, it is helpful to bring out some preliminary facts. First, the defendant corporation is supervised and principally financed by the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), a subsidiary investment of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), with cash financial exposure of some P10,000,000.00. PNB is a government financial institution whose Board is chairmaned (sic) by the Minister of National Defense. This fact is very material to the issue of whether defendant corporations president can bind the corporation with his own act. Second, for failure to deny under oath the following actionable documents in support of

defendant's counterclaim: 1. The resolution contained in defendant's letter to plaintiff dated July 5, 1973, on the 10,000 bags of white cement delivered to plaintiff was not by reason of the letter contract, Exhibit "A", which was totally disapproved by defendant corporation's board of directors, clearly stating that "If within ten (10) days from date hereof, we will not hear from you but you will withdraw cement at P24.30 per bag from our plant, then we will deposit your check of P243,000.00 dated June 7, 1973 issued by the Producers Bank of the Philippines, per instruction of the Board." (Annex "I" to defendant's Answer). 2. Letter of defendant to plaintiff dated August 4, 1973 that defendant "only committed to you and which you accordingly paid 10,000 bags of white cement of which 4,150 bags were already delivered to you as of August 1, 1973" (Annex "2" of defendant's Answer). 3. Letter dated August 21, 1973 to plaintiff reiterating defendant's letter of August 4, 1973 (Annex "3" to defendant's Answer). 4. Letter to stores dated August 21, 1973, 5. Receipt from plaintiff (sic) P243,000.00 in payment of 10,000 bags of white cement at P24.30 per bag (Annex "5", to defendant's Answer). plaintiff is deemed to have admitted, not only the due execution and genuiness (sic) of said documents, (Rule 8 Sec. 8, Rules of Court) but also the allegations therein (Rule 9, Sec. 1, Rules of Court). All of the foregoing documents tend to prove that the letter-offer, Exhibit "A", was rejected by defendant corporation's Board of Directors and plaintiff was duly notified thereof and that the P243,000.00 check was considered by both parties as payment of the 10,000 bags of cement under a separate transaction. As proof of which plaintiff did not complain nor protest until February 9, 1974, when he threatened legal action. Third, Maglana's signing the letter-offer prepared for him in the Solidbank was made clearly upon the condition that it was subject to the approval of the board of directors of defendant corporation. We find consistency herein because according to the Corporation Law, and the By-Laws of defendant corporation, all corporate commitments and business are conducted by, and contracts entered into through, the express authority of the Board of Directors (Sec. 28. Corp. Law, Exh "I" or "8"). Fourth, What Henry Yao and Maglana agreed upon as embodied in Exhibit "A", insofar as defendant corporation is concerned, was an unauthorized contract (Arts. 1317 and 1403 (1), Civil Code). And because Maglana was not authorized by the Board of Directors of defendant corporation nor was his, actuation ratified by the Board, the agreement is unenforceable (Art. 1403 (1), Civil Code; Raquiza et al. vs. Lilles et al., 13 CA Rep. 343; Gana vs. Archbishop of Manila, 43 O-G. 3224). While it may be true that Maglana is President of defendant corporation nowhere in the Articles of Incorporation nor in the By-Laws of said corporation was he empowered to enter into any contract all by himself and bind the corporation without first securing the authority and consent of the Board of Directors. Whatever authority Maglana may have must be derived from the Board of Directors of defendant corporation. A corporate officers power as an agent must be sought from the law, the articles of incorporation and the By-Laws or from a resolution of the Board (Vicente vs. Geraldez, 52 SCRA 227, Board of Liquidators vs. Kalaw, 20 SCRA 987). It clearly results from the foregoing that the judgment appealed from is untenable. Having

no cause of action against defendant corporation, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. We see no justification, therefore, for the court a quo's awards in its favor. . . . 34

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the respondent Court in its resolution 35 dated 15 April 1980, petitioner filed the instant petition based on the following grounds:
1. That the contract (Exh. "A") entered into by the President and Chairman of the Board of Directors Constancio B. Maglana in behalf of the respondent corporation binds the said corporation. 2. That the contract (Exh. "A") was never novated nor superceded (sic) by a subsequent contract. 3. That the option to renew the contract as contained in Exhibit "A" is enforceable. 4. That Sec. 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court only applies when the adverse party appear (sic) to be a party to the instrument but not to one who is not a party to the instrument and Sec. 1, Rule 9 of the said Rules with regards (sic) to denying under oath refers only to allegations of usury. 36

We gave due course 37 to the petition after private respondent filed its Comment 38 and required the parties to submit simultaneously their Memoranda, which the parties subsequently complied with. 39 Before going any further, this Court must first resolve an issue which, although raised in the Answer of private respondent, was neither pursued in its appeal before the respondent Court nor in its Comment and Memorandum in this case. It also eluded the attention of the trial court and the respondent Court. The issue, which is of paramount importance, concerns the lack of capacity of plaintiff/petitioner to sue. In the caption of both the complaint and the instant petition, the plaintiff and the petitioner, respectively, is:
YAO KA SIN TRADING, owned and operated by YAO KA SIN. 40

and is described in the body thereof as "a business concern of single proprietorship owned and operated by Yao Ka Sin." 41 In the body of the petition, it is described as "a single proprietorship business concern." 42 It also appears that, as gathered from the decision of the trial court, no Yao Ka Sin testified. Instead, one Henry Yao took the witness stand and testified that he is the "manager of Yao Ka Sin Trading" and "it was in representation of the plaintiff" that he signed Exhibit "A" 43 Under Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. In Juasing Hardware vs. Mendoza, 44 this Court held that a single proprietorship is neither a natural person nor a juridical person under Article 44 of the Civil Code; it is not an entity authorized by law to bring suit in court:
The law merely recognizes the existence of a sole proprietorship as a form of business organization conducted for profit by a single individual, and requires the proprietor or

owner thereof to secure licenses and permits, register the business name, and pair taxes to the national government. It does not vest juridical or legal personality upon the sole proprietorship nor empower it to file or defend an action in court. 45

Accordingly, the proper party plaintiff/petitioner should be YAO KA SIN. 46 The complaint then should have been amended to implead Yao Ka Sin as plaintiff in substitution of Yao Ka Sin Trading. However, it is now too late in the history of this case to dismiss this petition and, in effect, nullify all proceedings had before the trial court and the respondent Court on the sole ground of petitioner's lack of capacity to sue. Considering that private respondent did not pursue this issue before the respondent Court and this Court; that, as We held in Juasing, the defect is merely formal and not substantial, and an amendment to cure such defect is expressly authorized by Section 4, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court which provides that "[a] defect in the designation of the parties may be summarily corrected at any stage of the action provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party;" and that "[a] sole proprietorship does not, of coarse, possess any juridical personality separate and apart from the personality of the owner of the enterprise and the personality of the persons acting in the name of such proprietorship," 47 We hold and declare that Yao Ka Sin should be deemed as the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 5064 and the petitioner in the instant case. As this Court stated nearly eighty (80) years ago in Alonso vs. Villamor: 48
No one has been misled by the error in the name of the party plaintiff. If we should by reason of this error send this case back for amendment and new trial, there would be on the retrial the same complaint, the same answer, the same defense, the same interests, the same witnesses, and the same evidence. The name of the plaintiff would constitute the only difference between the old trial and the new. In our judgment there is not enough in a name to justify such action.

And now to the merits of the petition. The respondent Court correctly ruled that Exhibit "A" is not binding upon the private respondent. Mr. Maglana, its President and Chairman, was not empowered to execute it. Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that it is a valid contract because the Maglana has the power to enter into contracts for the corporation as implied from the following provisions of the By-Laws of private respondent:
a) The power of the Board of Directors to . . . enter into (sic) agreement or contract of any kind with any person in the name and for and in behalf of the corporation through its President, subject only to the declared objects and purpose of the corporation and the existing provisions of law. (Exhibit "8-A"); and b) The power of the Chairman of the Board of Directors to "execute and sign, for and in behalf of the corporation, all contracts or agreements which the corporation may enter into" (Exhibit "I-1").

And even admitting, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Maglana was not so authorized under the By-Laws, the private respondent, pursuant to the doctrine laid down by this Court in Francisco vs. Government Service Insurance

System 49 and Board of Liquidators vs. Kalaw, clothing him with apparent authority. We are not persuaded.

50

is still bound by his act for

Since a corporation, such as the private respondent, can act only through its officers and agents, "all acts within the powers of said corporation may be performed by agents of its selection; and, except so far as limitations or restrictions may be imposed by special charter, by-law, or statutory provisions, the same general principles of law which govern the relation of agency for a natural person govern the officer or agent of a corporation, of whatever status or rank, in respect to his power to act for the corporation; and agents when once appointed, or members acting in their stead, are subject to the same rules, liabilities and incapacities as are agents of individuals and private persons." 51 Moreover, " . . . a corporate officer or agent may represent and bind the corporation in transactions with third persons to the extent that 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. 52 While there can be no question that Mr. Maglana was an officer the President and Chairman of private respondent corporation at the time he signed Exhibit "A", the above provisions of said private respondent's By-Laws do not in any way confer upon the President the authority to enter into contracts for the corporation independently, of the Board of Directors. That power is exclusively lodged in the latter. Nevertheless, to expedite or facilitate the execution of the contract, only the President and not all the members of the Board, or so much thereof as are required for the act shall sign it for the corporation. This is the import of the words through the president in Exhibit "8-A" and the clear intent of the power of the chairman "to execute and sign for and in behalf of the corporation all contracts and agreements which the corporation may enter into" in Exhibit "I-1". Both powers presuppose a prior act of the corporation exercised through the Board of Directors. No greater power can be implied from such express, but limited, delegated authority. Neither can it be logically claimed that any power greater than that expressly conferred is inherent in Mr. Maglana's position as president and chairman of the corporation. Although there is authority "that if the president is given general control and supervision over the affairs of the corporation, it will be presumed that he has authority to make contract and do acts within the course of its ordinary business," 53 We find such inapplicable in this case. We note that the private corporation has a general manager who, under its By-Laws has, inter alia, the following powers: "(a) to have the active and direct management of the business and operation of the corporation, conducting the same accordingly to the order, directives or

resolutions of the Board of Directors or of the president." It goes without saying then that Mr. Maglana did not have a direct and active and in the management of the business and operations of the corporation. Besides, no evidence was adduced to show that Mr. Maglana had, in the past, entered into contracts similar to that of Exhibit "A" either with the petitioner or with other parties. Petitioner's last refuge then is his alternative proposition, namely, that private respondent had clothed Mr. Maglana with the apparent power to act for it and had caused persons dealing with it to believe that he was conferred with such power. The rule is of course settled that "[a]lthough an officer or agent acts without, or in excess of, his actual authority if he acts within the scope of an apparent authority with which the corporation has clothed him by holding him out or permitting him to appear as having such authority, the corporation is bound thereby in favor of a person who deals with him in good faith in reliance on such apparent authority, as where an officer is allowed to exercise a particular authority with respect to the business, or a particular branch of it, continuously and publicly, for a considerable time." 54 Also, "if a private corporation intentionally or negligently clothes its officers or agents with apparent power to perform acts for it, the corporation will be estopped to deny that such apparent authority in real, as to innocent third persons dealing in good faith with such officers or agents." 55 This "apparent authority may result from (1) the general manner, by which the corporation holds out an officer or agent as having power to act or, in other words, the apparent authority with which it clothes him to act in general or (2) acquiescence in his acts of a particular nature, with actual or constructive knowledge thereof, whether within or without the scope of his ordinary powers. 56 It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that indeed the private respondent had clothed Mr. Maglana with the apparent power to execute Exhibit "A" or any similar contract. This could have been easily done by evidence of similar acts executed either in its favor or in favor of other parties. Petitioner miserably failed to do that. Upon the other hand, private respondent's evidence overwhelmingly shows that no contract can be signed by the president without first being approved by the Board of Directors; such approval may only be given after the contract passes through, at least, the comptroller, who is the NIDC representative, and the legal counsel. The cases then of Francisco vs. GSIS and Board of Liquidators vs. Kalaw are hopelessly unavailing to the petitioner. In said cases, this Court found sufficient evidence, based on the conduct and actuations of the corporations concerned, of apparent authority conferred upon the officer involved which bound the corporations on the basis of ratification. In the first case, it was established that the offer of compromise made by plaintiff in the letter, Exhibit "A", was validly accepted by the GSIS. The terms of the trial offer were clear, and over the signature of defendant's general manager Rodolfo Andal, plaintiff was informed telegraphically that her proposal had been accepted. It was sent by the GSIS Board Secretary and defendant did not disown the same. Moreover, in a letter remitting the payment of P30,000 advanced by her father, plaintiff quoted

verbatim the telegram of acceptance. This was in itself notice to the corporation of the terms of the allegedly unauthorized telegram. Notwithstanding this notice, GSIS pocketed the amount and kept silent about the telegram. This Court then ruled that:
This silence, taken together with the unconditional acceptance of three other subsequent remittances from plaintiff, constitutes in itself a binding ratification of the original agreement (Civil Code, Art. 1393). Art. 1393. Ratification may be effected expressly or tactly it is understood that there is a tacit ratification if, with knowledge of the reason which renders the contract voidable and such reason having ceased, the person who has a right to invoke it should execute an act which necessarily implies an intention to waive his right

In the second case, this Court found:

In the case at bar, the practice of the corporation has been to allow its general manager to negotiate and execute contracts in its copra trading activities for and in NACOCO's behalf without prior board approval. If the by-laws were to be literally followed, the board should give its stamp of prior approval on all corporate contracts. But that board itself, by its acts and through acquiescence, practically laid aside the by-laws requirement of prior approval. Under the given circumstances, the Kalaw contracts are valid corporate acts.

The inevitable conclusion then is that Exhibit "A" is an unenforceable contract under Article 1317 of the Civil Code which provides as follows:
Art. 1317. No one may contract in the name of another without being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him. A contract entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it, has been execrated, before it is revoked by the other contracting party.

The second ground is based on a wrong premise. It assumes, contrary to Our conclusion above, that Exhibit "A" is a valid contract binding upon the private respondent. It was effectively disapproved and rejected by the Board of Directors which, at the same time, considered the amount of P243,000.00 received Mr. Maglana as payment for 10,000 bags of white cement, treated as an entirely different contract, and forthwith notified petitioner of its decision that "If within ten (10) days from date hereof we will not hear from you but you will withdraw cement at P24.30 per bag from our plant, then we will deposit your check of P243,000.00 dated June 7, 1973 issued by the Producers Bank of the Philippines, per instruction of the Board." 57 Petitioner received the copy of this notification and thereafter accepted without any protest the Delivery Receipt covering the 10,000 bags and the Official Receipt for the P243,000.00. The respondent Court thus correctly ruled that petitioner had in fact agreed to a new transaction involving only 10,000 bags of white cement. The third ground must likewise fail. Exhibit "A" being unenforceable, the option to

renew it would have no leg to stand on. The river cannot rise higher than its source. In any event, the option granted in. this case is without any consideration Article 1324 of the Civil Code expressly provides that:
When the offerer has allowed the offeree a certain period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any time before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is founded upon a consideration, as something paid or promised.

while Article 1749 of the same Code provides:

A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally demandable. An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price.

Accordingly, even if it were accepted, it can not validly bind the private respondent. 58 The fourth ground is, however, meritorious. Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 8. How to contest genuineness of such documents When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached in the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but this provision does not apply when the adverse party does not appear, to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.

It is clear that the petitioner is not a party to any of the documents attached to the private respondent's Answer. Thus, the above quoted rule is not applicable. 59 While the respondent Court, erred in holding otherwise, the challenged decision must, nevertheless, stand in view of the above disquisitions on the first to the third grounds of the petition. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. No. 61072-R promulgated on 21 December 1979. Cost against the petitioner