Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

183612 March 15, 2010

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 184260 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION, Respondent. DECISION VILLARAMA, JR., J.: The above-titled consolidated petitions filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seek to reverse the Decision1 dated June 25, 2008 and Resolution dated August 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 84399 which affirmed the Decision2 dated November 25, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 144 in Civil Case No. 88-2238. The undisputed facts are as follows: Petitioner National Development Company (NDC) is a government- owned and controlled corporation, created under Commonwealth Act No. 182, as amended by Com. Act No. 311 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 668. Petitioner Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) is a public, non-sectarian, non-profit educational institution created in 1978 by virtue of P.D. No. 1341. In the early sixties, NDC had in its disposal a ten (10)-hectare property located along Pureza St., Sta. Mesa, Manila. The estate was popularly known as the NDC Compound and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 92885, 110301 and 145470. On September 7, 1977, NDC entered into a Contract of Lease (C-33-77) with Golden Horizon Realty Corporation (GHRC) over a portion of the property, with an area of 2,407 square meters for a period of ten (10) years, renewable for another ten (10) years with mutual consent of the parties.3 On May 4, 1978, a second Contract of Lease (C-12-78) was executed between NDC and GHRC covering 3,222.80 square meters, also renewable upon mutual consent after the expiration of the ten (10)-year lease period. In addition, GHRC as lessee was granted the "option to purchase the area leased, the price to be negotiated and determined at the time the option to purchase is exercised."4 Under the lease agreements, GHRC was obliged to construct at its own expense buildings of strong material at no less than the stipulated cost, and other improvements which shall automatically belong to the NDC as lessor upon the expiration of the lease period. Accordingly, GHRC introduced permanent improvements and structures as required by the terms of the contract. After the completion of the industrial complex project, for which GHRC spentP5 million, it was leased to various manufacturers, industrialists and other businessmen thereby generating hundreds of jobs.5 On June 13, 1988, before the expiration of the ten (10)-year period under the second lease contract, GHRC wrote a letter to NDC indicating its exercise of the option to renew the lease for another ten (10) years. As no response was received from NDC, GHRC sent another letter on August 12, 1988, reiterating its desire to renew the contract and also requesting for priority to negotiate for its purchase should NDC opt to sell the leased premises.6 NDC still did not reply but continued to accept rental payments from GHRC and allowed the latter to remain in possession of the property. Sometime after September 1988, GHRC discovered that NDC had decided to secretly dispose the property to a third party. On October 21, 1988, GHRC filed in the RTC a complaint for specific performance, damages with preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.7 In the meantime, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Memorandum Order No. 214 dated January 6, 1989, ordering the transfer of the whole NDC Compound to the National Government, which in turn would convey the said property in favor of PUP at acquisition cost. The memorandum order cited the serious need of PUP, considered the "Poor Mans University," to expand its campus, which adjoins the NDC Compound, to accommodate its growing student population, and the willingness of PUP to buy and of NDC to sell its property. The order of conveyance of the 10.31-hectare property would automatically result in the cancellation of NDCs total obligation in favor of the National Government in the amount of P57,193,201.64.8 On February 20, 1989, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining NDC and its attorneys, representatives, agents and any other persons assisting it from proceeding with the sale and disposition of the leased premises.9

On February 23, 1989, PUP filed a motion to intervene as party defendant, claiming that as a purchaser pendente lite of a property subject of litigation it is entitled to intervene in the proceedings. The RTC granted the said motion and directed PUP to file its Answer-in-Intervention.10 PUP also demanded that GHRC vacate the premises, insisting that the latters lease contract had already expired. Its demand letter unheeded by GHRC, PUP filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 134416) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila on January 14, 1991.11 Due to this development, GHRC filed an Amended and/or Supplemental Complaint to include as additional defendants PUP, Honorable Executive Secretary Oscar Orbos and Judge Ernesto A. Reyes of the Manila MeTC, and to enjoin the afore-mentioned defendants from prosecuting Civil Case No. 134416 for ejectment. A temporary restraining order was subsequently issued by the RTC enjoining PUP from prosecuting and Judge Francisco Brillantes, Jr. from proceeding with the ejectment case.12 In its Second Amended and/or Supplemental Complaint, GHRC argued that Memorandum Order No. 214 is a nullity, for being violative of the writ of injunction issued by the trial court, apart from being an infringement of the Constitutional prohibition against impairment of obligation of contracts, an encroachment on legislative functions and a bill of attainder. In the alternative, should the trial court adjudge the memorandum order as valid, GHRC contended that its existing right must still be respected by allowing it to purchase the leased premises.13 Pre-trial was set but was suspended upon agreement of the parties to await the final resolution of a similar case involving NDC, PUP and another lessee of NDC, Firestone Ceramics, Inc. (Firestone), then pending before the RTC of Pasay City.14 On November 14, 2001, this Court rendered a decision in G.R. Nos. 143513 (Polytechnic University of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals) and 143590 (National Development Corporation v. Firestone Ceramics, Inc.),15which declared that the sale to PUP by NDC of the portion leased by Firestone pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 214 violated the right of first refusal granted to Firestone under its third lease contract with NDC. We thus decreed: WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. No. 143513 and G.R. No. 143590 are DENIED. Inasmuch as the first contract of lease fixed the area of the leased premises at 2.90118 hectares while the second contract placed it at 2.60 hectares, let a ground survey of the leased premises be immediately conducted by a duly licensed, registered surveyor at the expense of private respondent FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., within two (2) months from the finality of the judgment in this case. Thereafter, private respondent FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., shall have six (6) months from receipt of the approved survey within which to exercise its right to purchase the leased property at P1,500.00 per square meter, and petitioner Polytechnic University of the Philippines is ordered to reconvey the property to FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., in the exercise of its right of first refusal upon payment of the purchase price thereof. SO ORDERED.16 The RTC resumed the proceedings and when mediation and pre-trial failed to settle the case amicably, trial on the merits ensued.17 On November 25, 2004, the RTC rendered its decision upholding the right of first refusal granted to GHRC under its lease contract with NDC and ordering PUP to reconvey the said portion of the property in favor of GHRC. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the plaintiff to cause immediate ground survey of the premises subject of the leased contract under Lease Contract No. C-33-77 and C-12-78 measuring 2,407 and 3,222.8 square meters respectively, by a duly licensed and registered surveyor at the expense of the plaintiff within two months from receipt of this Decision and thereafter, the plaintiff shall have six (6) months from receipt of the approved survey within which to exercise its right to purchase the leased property at P554.74 per square meter. And finally, the defendant PUP, in whose name the property is titled, is hereby ordered to reconvey the aforesaid property to the plaintiff in the exercise of its right of its option to buy or first refusal upon payment of the purchase price thereof. The defendant NDC is hereby further ordered to pay the plaintiff attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000.00. The case against defendant Executive Secretary is dismissed and this decision shall bind defendant Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 20 of Manila. With costs against defendants NDC and PUP. SO ORDERED.18 NDC and PUP separately appealed the decision to the CA.19 By Decision of June 25, 2008, the CA affirmed in totothe decision of the RTC.20 Both the RTC and the CA applied this Courts ruling in Polytechnic University of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals (supra), considering that GHRC is similarly situated as a lessee of NDC whose right of first refusal under the lease contract was violated by the sale of the property to PUP without NDC having first offered to sell the same to GHRC despite the latters request for the renewal of the lease and/or to purchase the leased premises prior to the expiration of the second lease contract. The CA further agreed with the RTCs finding that there was an implied renewal of the lease upon the failure of NDC to act on GHRCs repeated requests for renewal of the lease contract, both verbal and written, and continuing to accept monthly rental payments from GHRC which was allowed to continue in possession of the leased premises. The CA also rejected the argument of NDC and PUP that even assuming that GHRC had the right of first refusal, said right pertained only to the second lease contract, C-12-78 covering 3,222.80 square meters, and not to the first lease contract, C-33-77 covering 2,407 square meters, which had already expired. It sustained the RTCs finding that the two (2) lease contracts were interrelated because each formed part of GHRCs industrial complex, such that business operations would be rendered useless and inoperative if the first contract were to be detached from the other, as similarly held in the aforementioned case of Polytechnic University of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals.

Petitioner PUP argues that respondents right to exercise the option to purchase had expired with the termination of the original contract of lease and was not carried over to the subsequent implied new lease between respondent and petitioner NDC. As testified to by their witnesses Leticia Cabantog and Atty. Rhoel Mabazza, there was no agreement or document to the effect that respondents request for extension or renewal of the subject contracts of lease for another ten (10) years was approved by NDC. Hence, respondent can no longer exercise the option to purchase the leased premises when the same were conveyed to PUP pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 214 dated January 6, 1989, long after the expiration of C-33-77 and C-12-78 in September 1988.21 Petitioner PUP further contends that while it is conceded that there was an implied new lease between respondent and petitioner NDC after the expiration of the lease contracts, the same did not include the right of first refusal originally granted to respondent. The CA should have applied the ruling in Dizon v. Magsaysay22 that the lessee cannot any more exercise its option to purchase after the lapse of the one (1)-year period of the lease contract. With the implicit renewal of the lease on a monthly basis, the other terms of the original contract of lease which are revived in the implied new lease under Article 1670 of the Civil Code are only those terms which are germane to the lessees right of continued enjoyment of the property leased. The provision entitling the lessee the option to purchase the leased premises is not deemed incorporated in the impliedly renewed contract because it is alien to the possession of the lessee. Consequently, as in this case, respondents right of option to purchase the leased premises was not violated despite the impliedly renewed contract of lease with NDC. Respondent cannot favorably invoke the decision in G.R. Nos. 143513 and 143590 (Polytechnic University of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals)for the simple reason, among others, that unlike in said cases, the contracts of lease of respondent with NDC were not mutually extended or renewed for another ten (10) years. Thus, when the leased premises were conveyed to PUP, respondent did not any more have any right of first refusal, which incidentally appears only in the second lease contract and not in the first lease contract.23 On its part, petitioner NDC assails the CA in holding that the contracts of lease were impliedly renewed for another ten (10)-year period. The provisions of C-33-77 and C-12-78 clearly state that the lessee is granted the option "to renew for another ten (10) years with the mutual consent of both parties." As regards the continued receipt of rentals by NDC and possession by the respondent of the leased premises, the impliedly renewed lease was only month-tomonth and not ten (10) years since the rentals are being paid on a monthly basis, as held in Dizon v. Magsaysay.24 Petitioner NDC further faults the CA in sustaining the RTCs decision which erroneously granted respondent the option to purchase the leased premises at the rate of P554.74 per square meter, the same rate for which NDC sold the property to petitioner PUP and/or the National Government, which is the mere acquisition cost thereof. It must be noted that such consideration or rate was imposed by Memorandum Order No. 214 under the premise that it shall, in effect, be a sale and/or purchase from one (1) government agency to another. It was intended merely as a transfer of one (1) user of the National Government to another, with the beneficiary, PUP in this case, merely returning to the petitioner/transferor the cost of acquisition thereof, as appearing on its accounting books. It does not in any way reflect the true and fair market value of the property, nor was it a price a "willing seller" would demand and accept for parting with his real property. Such benefit, therefore, cannot be extended to respondent as a private entity, as the latter does not share the same pocket, so to speak, with the National Government.25 The issue to be resolved is whether or not our ruling in Polytechnic University of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals applies in this case involving another lessee of NDC who claimed that the option to purchase the portion leased to it was similarly violated by the sale of the NDC Compound in favor of PUP pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 214. We rule in the affirmative. The second lease contract contained the following provision: III. It is mutually agreed by the parties that this Contract of Lease shall be in full force and effect for a period of ten (10) years counted from the effectivity of the payment of rental as provided under sub-paragraph (b) of Article I, with option to renew for another ten (10) years with the mutual consent of both parties. In no case should the rentals be increased by more than 100% of the original amount fixed. Lessee shall also have the option to purchase the area leased, the price to be negotiated and determined at the time the option to purchase is exercised. [emphasis supplied] An option is a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that the latter shall have the right to buy the formers property at a fixed price within a certain time. It is a condition offered or contract by which the owner stipulates with another that the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price within a certain time, or under, or in compliance with certain terms and conditions; or which gives to the owner of the property the right to sell or demand a sale.26 It binds the party, who has given the option, not to enter into the principal contract with any other person during the period designated, and, within that period, to enter into such contract with the one to whom the option was granted, if the latter should decide to use the option.271avvphi1 Upon the other hand, a right of first refusal is a contractual grant, not of the sale of a property, but of the first priority to buy the property in the event the owner sells the same.28 As distinguished from an option contract, in a right of first refusal, while the object might be made determinate, the exercise of the right of first refusal would be dependent not only on the owners eventual intention to enter into a binding juridical relation with another but also on terms, including the price, that are yet to be firmed up.29 As the option to purchase clause in the second lease contract has no definite period within which the leased premises will be offered for sale to respondent lessee and the price is made subject to negotiation and determined only at the time the option to buy is exercised, it is obviously a mere right of refusal, usually inserted in lease contracts to give the lessee the first crack to buy the property in case the lessor decides to sell the same. That respondent was granted a right of first refusal under the second lease contract appears not to have been disputed by petitioners. What petitioners assail is the CAs erroneous conclusion that such right of refusal subsisted even after the expiration of the original lease period, when respondent was allowed to continue staying in the leased premises under an implied renewal of the lease and without the right of refusal carried over to such month-to-month lease. Petitioners thus maintain that no right of refusal was violated by the sale of the property in favor of PUP pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 214. Petitioners position is untenable.

When a lease contract contains a right of first refusal, the lessor has the legal duty to the lessee not to sell the leased property to anyone at any price until after the lessor has made an offer to sell the property to the lessee and the lessee has failed to accept it. Only after the lessee has failed to exercise his right of first priority could the lessor sell the property to other buyers under the same terms and conditions offered to the lessee, or under terms and conditions more favorable to the lessor.30 Records showed that during the hearing on the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, respondent adduced in evidence a letter of Antonio A. Henson dated 15 July 1988 addressed to Mr. Jake C. Lagonera, Director and Special Assistant to Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraeg, reviewing a proposed memorandum order submitted to President Corazon C. Aquino transferring the whole NDC Compound, including the premises leased by respondent, in favor of petitioner PUP. This letter was offered in evidence by respondent to prove the existence of documents as of that date and even prior to the expiration of the second lease contract or the lapse of the ten (10)-year period counted from the effectivity of the rental payment -- that is, one hundred and fifty (150) days from the signing of the contract (May 4, 1978), as provided in Art. I, paragraph (b) of C-12-78, or on October 1, 1988. Respondent thus timely exercised its option to purchase on August 12, 1988. However, considering that NDC had been negotiating through the National Government for the sale of the property in favor of PUP as early as July 15, 1988 without first offering to sell it to respondent and even when respondent communicated its desire to exercise the option to purchase granted to it under the lease contract, it is clear that NDC violated respondents right of first refusal. Under the premises, the matter of the right of refusal not having been carried over to the impliedly renewed month-to-month lease after the expiration of the second lease contract on October 21, 1988 becomes irrelevant since at the time of the negotiations of the sale to a third party, petitioner PUP, respondents right of first refusal was still subsisting. Petitioner NDC in its memorandum contended that the CA erred in applying the ruling in Polytechnic University of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals pointing out that the case of lessee Firestone Ceramics, Inc. is different because the lease contract therein had not yet expired while in this case respondents lease contracts have already expired and never renewed. The date of the expiration of the lease contract in said case is December 31, 1989 which is prior to the issuance of Memorandum Order No. 214 on January 6, 1989. In contrast, respondents lease contracts had already expired (September 1988) at the time said memorandum order was issued.31 Such contention does not hold water. As already mentioned, the reckoning point of the offer of sale to a third party was not the issuance of Memorandum Order No. 214 on January 6, 1989 but the commencement of such negotiations as early as July 1988 when respondents right of first refusal was still subsisting and the lease contracts still in force. Petitioner NDC did not bother to respond to respondents letter of June 13, 1988 informing it of respondents exercise of the option to renew and requesting to discuss further the matter with NDC, nor to the subsequent letter of August 12, 1988 reiterating the request for renewing the lease for another ten (10) years and also the exercise of the option to purchase under the lease contract. Petitioner NDC had dismissed these letters as "mere informative in nature, and a request at its best."32 Perusal of the letter dated August 12, 1988, however, belies such claim of petitioner NDC that it was merely informative, thus: August 12, 1988 HON. ANTONIO HENSON General Manager NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 377 Se(n). Gil J. Puyat Avenue Makati, Metro Manila REF: Contract of Lease Nos. C-33-77 & C-12-78 Dear Sir: This is further to our earlier letter dated June 13, 1988 formally advising your goodselves of our intention to exercise our option for another ten (10) years. Should the National Development Company opt to sell the property covered by said leases, we also request for priority to negotiate for its purchase at terms and/or conditions mutually acceptable. As a backgrounder, we wish to inform you that since the start of our lease, we have improved on the property by constructing bodega-type buildings which presently house all legitimate trading and manufacturing concerns. These business are substantial taxpayers, employ not less than 300 employees and contribute even foreign earnings. It is in this context that we are requesting for the extension of the lease contract to prevent serious economic disruption and dislocation of the business concerns, as well as provide ourselves, the lessee, an opportunity to recoup our investments and obtain a fair return thereof. Your favorable consideration on our request will be very much appreciated. very truly yours, TIU HAN TENG President33

As to petitioners argument that respondents right of first refusal can be invoked only with respect to the second lease contract which expressly provided for the option to purchase by the lessee, and not in the first lease contract which contained no such clause, we sustain the RTC and CA in finding that the second contract, covering an area of 3,222.80 square meters, is interrelated to and inseparable from the first contract over 2,407 square meters. The structures built on the leased premises, which are adjacent to each other, form part of an integrated system of a commercial complex leased out to manufacturers, fabricators and other businesses. Petitioners submitted a sketch plan and pictures taken of the driveways, in an effort to show that the leased premises can be used separately by respondent, and that the two (2) lease contracts are distinct from each other.34 Such was a desperate attempt to downplay the commercial purpose of respondents substantial improvements which greatly contributed to the increased value of the leased premises. To prove that petitioner NDC had considered the leased premises as a single unit, respondent submitted evidence showing that NDC issued only one (1) receipt for the rental payments for the two portions.35 Respondent further presented the blueprint plan prepared by its witness, Engr. Alejandro E. Tinio, who supervised the construction of the structures on the leased premises, to show the building concept as a one-stop industrial site and integrated commercial complex.36 In fine, the CA was correct in declaring that there exists no justifiable reason not to apply the same rationale inPolytechnic University of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals in the case of respondent who was similarly prejudiced by petitioner NDCs sale of the property to PUP, as to entitle the respondent to exercise its option to purchase until October 1988 inasmuch as the May 4, 1978 contract embodied the option to renew the lease for another ten (10) years upon mutual consent and giving respondent the option to purchase the leased premises for a price to be negotiated and determined at the time such option was exercised by respondent. It is to be noted that Memorandum Order No. 214 itself declared that the transfer is "subject to such liens/leases existing [on the subject property]." Thus: ...we now proceed to determine whether FIRESTONE should be allowed to exercise its right of first refusal over the property. Such right was expressly stated by NDC and FIRESTONE in par. XV of their third contract denominated as A-10-78 executed on 22 December 1978 which, as found by the courts a quo, was interrelated to and inseparable from their first contract denominated as C-30-65 executed on 24 August 1965 and their second contract denominated as C-26-68 executed on 8 January 1969. Thus Should the LESSOR desire to sell the leased premises during the term of this Agreement, or any extension thereof, the LESSOR shall first give to the LESSEE, which shall have the right of first option to purchase the leased premises subject to mutual agreement of both parties. In the instant case, the right of first refusal is an integral and indivisible part of the contract of lease and is inseparable from the whole contract. The consideration for the right is built into the reciprocal obligations of the parties. Thus, it is not correct for petitioners to insist that there was no consideration paid by FIRESTONE to entitle it to the exercise of the right, inasmuch as the stipulation is part and parcel of the contract of lease making the consideration for the lease the same as that for the option. It is a settled principle in civil law that when a lease contract contains a right of first refusal, the lessor is under a legal duty to the lessee not to sell to anybody at any price until after he has made an offer to sell to the latter at a certain price and the lessee has failed to accept it. The lessee has a right that the lessors first offer shall be in his favor. The option in this case was incorporated in the contracts of lease by NDC for the benefit of FIRESTONE which, in view of the total amount of its investments in the property, wanted to be assured that it would be given the first opportunity to buy the property at a price for which it would be offered. Consistent with their agreement, it was then implicit for NDC to have first offered the leased premises of 2.60 hectares to FIRESTONE prior to the sale in favor of PUP. Only if FIRESTONE failed to exercise its right of first priority could NDC lawfully sell the property to petitioner PUP.37 [emphasis supplied] As we further ruled in the afore-cited case, the contractual grant of a right of first refusal is enforceable, and following an earlier ruling in Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc.,38 the execution of such right consists in directing the grantor to comply with his obligation according to the terms at which he should have offered the property in favor of the grantee and at that price when the offer should have been made. We then determined the proper rate at which the leased portion should be reconveyed to respondent by PUP, to whom the lessor NDC sold it in violation of respondent lessees right of first refusal, as follows: It now becomes apropos to ask whether the courts a quo were correct in fixing the proper consideration of the sale at P1,500.00 per square meter. In contracts of sale, the basis of the right of first refusal must be the current offer of the seller to sell or the offer to purchase of the prospective buyer. Only after the lessee-grantee fails to exercise its right under the same terms and within the period contemplated can the owner validly offer to sell the property to a third person, again, under the same terms as offered to the grantee. It appearing that the whole NDC compound was sold to PUP for P554.74 per square meter, it would have been more proper for the courts below to have ordered the sale of the property also at the same price. However, since FIRESTONE never raised this as an issue, while on the other hand it admitted that the value of the property stood at P1,500.00 per square meter, then we see no compelling reason to modify the holdings of the courts a quo that the leased premises be sold at that price.39 [emphasis supplied] In the light of the foregoing, we hold that respondent, which did not offer any amount to petitioner NDC, andneither disputed the P1,500.00 per square meter actual value of NDCs property at that time it was sold to PUP atP554.74 per square meter, as duly considered by this Court in the Firestone case, should be bound by such determination. Accordingly, the price at which the leased premises should be sold to respondent in the exercise of its right of first refusal under the lease contract with petitioner NDC, which was pegged by the RTC at P554.74 per square meter, should be adjusted to P1,500.00 per square meter, which more accurately reflects its true value at that time of the sale in favor of petitioner PUP. Indeed, basic is the rule that a party to a contract cannot unilaterally withdraw a right of first refusal that stands upon valuable consideration.40 We have categorically ruled that it is not correct to say that there is no consideration for the grant of the right of first refusal if such grant is embodied in the same contract of lease. Since the stipulation forms part of the entire lease contract, the consideration for the lease includes the consideration for the grant of the right of first refusal. In entering into the contract, the lessee is in effect stating that it consents to lease the premises and to pay the price agreed upon provided the lessor also consents that, should it sell the leased property, then, the lessee shall be given the right to match the offered purchase price and to buy the property at that price.41 We have further stressed that not even the avowed public welfare or the constitutional priority accorded to education, invoked by petitioner PUP in the Firestone case, would serve as license for us, and any party for that matter, to destroy the sanctity of binding obligations. While education may be

prioritized for legislative and budgetary purposes, it is doubtful if such importance can be used to confiscate private property such as the right of first refusal granted to a lessee of petitioner NDC.42 Clearly, no reversible error was committed by the CA in sustaining respondents contractual right of first refusal and ordering the reconveyance of the leased portion of petitioner NDCs property in its favor. WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated November 25, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 144 in Civil Case No. 88-2238, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated June 25, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV No. 84399, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the price to be paid by respondent Golden Horizon Realty Corporation for the leased portion of the NDC Compound under Lease Contract Nos. C-3377 and C-12-78 is hereby increased to P1,500.00 per square meter. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice Chairperson CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice

THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 177936, January 18, 2012] STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE REALTY CORPORATION, MSGR. DOMINGO A. CIRILOS, TROPICANA PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND STANDARD REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. DECISION ABAD, J.: The present case involves a determination of the perfection of contract of sale. The Facts and the Case On April 17, 1988 Ramon Licup wrote Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, offering to buy three contiguous parcels of land in Paraaque that The Holy See and Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC) owned for P1,240.00 per square meter. Licup accepted the responsibility for removing the illegal settlers on the land and enclosed a check for P100,000.00 to "close the transaction."[1] He undertook to pay the balance of the purchase price upon presentation of the title for transfer and once the property has been cleared of its occupants. Msgr. Cirilos, representing The Holy See and PRC, signed his name on the conformeportion of the letter and accepted the check. But the check could not be encashed due to Licup's stop-order payment. Licup wrote Msgr. Cirilos on April 26, 1988, requesting that the titles to the land be instead transferred to petitioner Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc. (SSE). He enclosed a new check for the same amount. SSE's representatives, Mr. and Mrs. Cu, did not sign the letter.

On November 29, 1988 Msgr. Cirilos wrote SSE, requesting it to remove the occupants on the property and, should it decide not to do this, Msgr. Cirilos would return to it the P100,000.00 that he received. On January 24, 1989 SSE replied with an "updated proposal."[2] It would be willing to comply with Msgr. Cirilos' condition provided the purchase price is lowered to P1,150.00 per square meter. On January 26, 1989 Msgr. Cirilos wrote back, rejecting the "updated proposal." He said that other buyers were willing to acquire the property on an "as is, where is" basis at P1,400.00 per square meter. He gave SSE seven days within which to buy the property at P1,400.00 per square meter, otherwise, Msgr. Cirilos would take it that SSE has lost interest in the same. He enclosed a check for P100,000.00 in his letter as refund of what he earlier received. On February 4, 1989 SSE wrote Msgr. Cirilos that they already had a perfected contract of sale in the April 17, 1988 letter which he signed and that, consequently, he could no longer impose amendments such as the removal of the informal settlers at the buyer's expense and the increase in the purchase price. SSE claimed that it got no reply from Msgr. Cirilos and that the next thing they knew, the land had been sold to Tropicana Properties on March 30, 1989. On May 15, 1989 SSE demanded rescission of that sale. Meanwhile, on August 4, 1989 Tropicana Properties sold the three parcels of land to Standard Realty. Its demand for rescission unheeded, SSE filed a complaint for annulment of sale and reconveyance with damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 61, against The Holy See, PRC, Msgr. Cirilos, and Tropicana Properties in Civil Case 90-183. SSE amended its complaint on February 24, 1992, impleading Standard Realty as additional defendant. The Holy See sought dismissal of the case against it, claiming that as a foreign government, it cannot be sued without its consent. The RTC held otherwise but, on December 1, 1994,[3] the Court reversed the ruling of the RTC and ordered the case against The Holy See dismissed. By Order of January 26, 1996 the case was transferred to the Paraaque RTC, Branch 258. SSE alleged that Licup's original letter of April 17, 1988 to Msgr. Cirilos constituted a perfected contract. Licup even gave an earnest money of P100,000.00 to "close the transaction." His offer to rid the land of its occupants was a "mere gesture of accommodation if only to expedite the transfer of its title."[4] Further, SSE claimed that, in representing The Holy See and PRC, Msgr. Cirilos acted in bad faith when he set the price of the property at P1,400.00 per square meter when in truth, the property was sold to Tropicana Properties for only P760.68 per square meter. Msgr. Cirilos maintained, on the other hand, that based on their exchange of letters, no contract of sale was perfected between SSE and the parties he represented. And, only after the negotiations between them fell through did he sell the land to Tropicana Properties. In its Decision of February 14, 2000, the Paraaque RTC treated the April 17, 1988 letter between Licum and Msgr. Cirilos as a perfected contract of sale between the parties. Msgr. Cirilos attempted to change the terms of contract and return SSE's initial deposit but the parties reached no agreement regarding such change. Since such agreement was wanting, the original terms provided in the April 17, 1988 letter continued to bind the parties. On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter rendered judgment on November 10, 2006,[5] reversing the Paraaque RTC decision. The CA held that no perfected contract can be gleaned from the April 17, 1988 letter that SSE had relied on. Indeed, the subsequent exchange of letters between SSE and Msgr. Cirilos show that the parties were grappling with the terms of the sale. Msgr. Cirilos made no unconditional acceptance that would give rise to a perfected contract. As to the P100,000.00 given to Msgr. Cirilos, the CA considered it an option money that secured for SSE only the privilege to buy the property even if Licup called it a "deposit." The CA denied SSE's motion for reconsideration on May 2, 2007. The Issue Presented The only issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in holding that no perfected contract of sale existed between SSE and the land owners, represented by Msgr. Cirilos. The Court's Ruling Three elements are needed to create a perfected contract: 1) the consent of the contracting parties; (2) an object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) the cause of the obligation which is established.[6] Under the law on sales, a contract of sale is perfected when the seller, obligates himself, for a price certain, to deliver and to transfer ownership of a thing or right to the buyer, over which the latter agrees.[7] From that moment, the parties may demand reciprocal performance. The Court believes that the April 17, 1988 letter between Licup and Msgr. Cirilos, the representative of the property's owners, constituted a perfected contract. When Msgr. Cirilos affixed his signature on that letter, he expressed his conformity to the terms of Licup's offer appearing on it. There was

meeting of the minds as to the object and consideration of the contract. But when Licup ordered a stop-payment on his deposit and proposed in his April 26, 1988 letter to Msgr. Cirilos that the property be instead transferred to SSE, a subjective novation took place. A subjective novation results through substitution of the person of the debtor or through subrogation of a third person to the rights of the creditor. To accomplish a subjective novation through change in the person of the debtor, the old debtor needs to be expressly released from the obligation and the third person or new debtor needs to assume his place in the relation.[8] Novation serves two functions - one is to extinguish an existing obligation, the other to substitute a new one in its place - requiring concurrence of four requisites: 1) a previous valid obligation; 2) an agreement of all parties concerned to a new contract; 3) the extinguishment of the old obligation; and 4) the birth of a valid new obligation.[9] Notably, Licup and Msgr. Cirilos affixed their signatures on the original agreement embodied in Licup's letter of April 26, 1988. No similar letter agreement can be found between SSE and Msgr. Cirilos. The proposed substitution of Licup by SSE opened the negotiation stage for a new contract of sale as between SSE and the owners. The succeeding exchange of letters between Mr. Stephen Cu, SSE's representative, and Msgr. Cirilos attests to an unfinished negotiation. Msgr. Cirilos referred to his discussion with SSE regarding the purchase as a "pending transaction."[10] Cu, on the other hand, regarded SSE's first letter to Msgr. Cirilos as an "updated proposal."[11] This proposal took up two issues: which party would undertake to evict the occupants on the property and how much must the consideration be for the property. These are clear indications that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties. As it turned out, the parties reached no consensus regarding these issues, thus producing no perfected sale between them. Parenthetically, Msgr. Cirilos did not act in bad faith when he sold the property to Tropicana even if it was for a lesser consideration. More than a month had passed since the last communication between the parties on February 4, 1989. It is not improbable for prospective buyers to offer to buy the property during that time. The P100,000.00 that was given to Msgr. Cirilos as "deposit" cannot be considered as earnest money. Where the parties merely exchanged offers and counter-offers, no contract is perfected since they did not yet give their consent to such offers.[12] Earnest money applies to a perfected sale. SSE cannot revert to the original terms stated in Licup's letter to Msgr. Cirilos dated April 17, 1988 since it was not privy to such contract. The parties to it were Licup and Msgr. Cirilos. Under the principle of relativity of contracts, contracts can only bind the parties who entered into it. It cannot favor or prejudice a third person.[13] Petitioner SSE cannot, therefore, impose the terms Licup stated in his April 17, 1988 letter upon the owners. WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 10, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV 67366. SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 103577. October 7, 1996]

ROMULO A. CORONEL, ALARICO A. CORONEL, ANNETTE A. CORONEL, ANNABELLE C. GONZALES (for herself and on behalf of Floraida C. Tupper, as attorney-in-fact), CIELITO A. CORONEL, FLORAIDA A. ALMONTE, and CATALINA BALAIS MABANAG,petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, CONCEPCION D. ALCARAZ and RAMONA PATRICIA ALCARAZ, assisted by GLORIA F. NOEL as attorney-infact, respondents. DECISION MELO, J.:

The petition before us has its roots in a complaint for specific performance to compel herein petitioners (except the last named, Catalina Balais Mabanag) to consummate the sale of a parcel of land with its improvements located along Roosevelt Avenue in Quezon City entered into by the parties sometime in January 1985 for the price of P1,240,000.00. The undisputed facts of the case were summarized by respondent court in this wise: On January 19, 1985, defendants-appellants Romulo Coronel, et. al. (hereinafter referred to as Coronels) executed a document entitled Receipt of Down Payment (Exh. A) in favor of plaintiff Ramona Patricia Alcaraz (hereinafter referred to as Ramona) which is reproduced hereunder: RECEIPT OF DOWN PAYMENT P1,240,000.00 - Total amount 50,000.00 - Down payment -----------------------------------------P1,190,000.00 - Balance Received from Miss Ramona Patricia Alcaraz of 146 Timog, Quezon City, the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos purchase price of our inherited house and lot, covered by TCT No. 119627 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, in the total amount of P1,240,000.00. We bind ourselves to effect the transfer in our names from our deceased father, Constancio P. Coronel, the transfer certificate of title immediately upon receipt of the down payment above-stated. On our presentation of the TCT already in or name, We will immediately execute the deed of absolute sale of said property and Miss Ramona Patricia Alcaraz shall immediately pay the balance of the P1,190,000.00. Clearly, the conditions appurtenant to the sale are the following: 1. Ramona will make a down payment of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) pesos upon execution of the document aforestated;

2. The Coronels will cause the transfer in their names of the title of the property registered in the name of their deceased father upon receipt of the Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos down payment; 3. Upon the transfer in their names of the subject property, the Coronels will execute the deed of absolute sale in favor of Ramona and the latter will pay the former the whole balance of One Million One Hundred Ninety Thousand (P1,190,000.00) Pesos. On the same date (January 15, 1985), plaintiff-appellee Concepcion D. Alcaraz (hereinafter referred to as Concepcion), mother of Ramona, paid the down payment of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos (Exh. B, Exh. 2). On February 6, 1985, the property originally registered in the name of the Coronels father was transferred in their names under TCT No. 327043 (Exh. D; Exh 4) On February 18, 1985, the Coronels sold the property covered by TCT No. 327043 to intervenor-appellant Catalina B. Mabanag (hereinafter referred to as Catalina) for One Million Five Hundred Eighty Thousand (P1,580,000.00) Pesos after the latter has paid Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos (Exhs. F-3; Exh. 6-C) For this reason, Coronels canceled and rescinded the contract (Exh. A) with Ramona by depositing the down payment paid by Concepcion in the bank in trust for Ramona Patricia Alcaraz. On February 22, 1985, Concepcion, et. al., filed a complaint for a specific performance against the Coronels and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of TCT No. 327403 (Exh. E; Exh. 5). On April 2, 1985, Catalina caused the annotation of a notice of adverse claim covering the same property with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City (Exh. F; Exh. 6). On April 25, 1985, the Coronels executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property in favor of Catalina (Exh. G; Exh. 7). On June 5, 1985, a new title over the subject property was issued in the name of Catalina under TCT No. 351582 (Exh. H; Exh. 8). (Rollo, pp. 134-136)

In the course of the proceedings before the trial court (Branch 83, RTC, Quezon City) the parties agreed to submit the case for decision solely on the basis of documentary exhibits. Thus, plaintiffs therein (now private respondents) proffered their documentary evidence accordingly marked as Exhibits A through J, inclusive of their corresponding submarkings. Adopting these same exhibits as their own, then defendants (now petitioners) accordingly offered and marked them as Exhibits 1 through 10, likewise inclusive of their corresponding submarkings. Upon motion of the parties, the trial court gave them thirty (30) days within which to simultaneously submit their respective memoranda, and an additional 15 days within which to submit their corresponding comment or reply thereto, after which, the case would be deemed submitted for resolution. On April 14, 1988, the case was submitted for resolution before Judge Reynaldo Roura, who was then temporarily detailed to preside over Branch 82 of the RTC of Quezon City. On March 1, 1989, judgment was handed down by Judge Roura from his regular bench at Macabebe, Pampanga for the Quezon City branch, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment for specific performance is hereby rendered ordering defendant to execute in favor of plaintiffs a deed of absolute sale covering that parcel of land embraced in and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 327403 (now TCT No. 331582) of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, together with all the improvements existing thereon free from all liens and encumbrances, and once accomplished, to immediately deliver the said document of sale to plaintiffs and upon receipt thereof, the plaintiffs are ordered to pay defendants the whole balance of the purchase price amounting toP1,190,000.00 in cash. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 331582 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City in the name of intervenor is hereby canceled and declared to be without force and effect. Defendants and intervenor and all other persons claiming under them are hereby ordered to vacate the subject property and deliver possession thereof to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim for damages and attorneys fees, as well as the counterclaims of defendants and intervenors are hereby dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs. So Ordered. Macabebe, Pampanga for Quezon City, March 1, 1989. (Rollo, p. 106) A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioners before the new presiding judge of the Quezon City RTC but the same was denied by Judge Estrella T. Estrada, thusly: The prayer contained in the instant motion, i.e., to annul the decision and to render anew decision by the undersigned Presiding Judge should be denied for the following reasons: (1) The instant case became submitted for decision as of April 14, 1988 when the parties terminated the presentation of their respective documentary evidence and when the Presiding Judge at that time was Judge Reynaldo Roura. The fact that they were allowed to file memoranda at some future date did not change the fact that the hearing of the case was terminated before Judge Roura and therefore the same should be submitted to him for decision; (2) When the defendants and intervenor did not object to the authority of Judge Reynaldo Roura to decide the case prior to the rendition of the decision, when they met for the first time before the undersigned Presiding Judge at the hearing of a pending incident in Civil Case No. Q-46145 on November 11, 1988, they were deemed to have acquiesced thereto and they are now estopped from questioning said authority of Judge Roura after they received the decision in question which happens to be adverse to them; (3) While it is true that Judge Reynaldo Roura was merely a Judge-ondetail at this Branch of the Court, he was in all respects the Presiding Judge with full authority to act on any pending incident submitted before this Court during his incumbency. When he returned to his Official Station at Macabebe, Pampanga, he did not lose his authority to decide or resolve cases submitted to him for decision or resolution because he continued as Judge of the Regional Trial Court and is of co-equal rank with the undersigned Presiding Judge. The standing rule and supported by jurisprudence is that a Judge to whom a case is submitted for decision has the authority to decide the case notwithstanding his transfer to another branch or region of the same court (Sec. 9, Rule 135, Rule of Court). Coming now to the twin prayer for reconsideration of the Decision dated March 1, 1989 rendered in the instant case, resolution of which now pertains to the undersigned Presiding Judge, after a meticulous examination of the documentary evidence presented by the parties, she is convinced that the Decision of March 1, 1989 is supported by evidence and, therefore, should not be disturbed. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Annul Decision and Render Anew Decision by the Incumbent Presiding Judge dated March 20, 1989 is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Philippines, July 12, 1989. (Rollo, pp. 108-109) Petitioners thereupon interposed an appeal, but on December 16, 1991, the Court of Appeals (Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Abad-Santos (P), JJ.) rendered its decision fully agreeing with the trial court. Hence, the instant petition which was filed on March 5, 1992. The last pleading, private respondents Reply Memorandum, was filed on September 15, 1993. The case was, however, re-raffled to undersigned ponente only on August 28, 1996, due to the voluntary inhibition of the Justice to whom the case was last assigned. While we deem it necessary to introduce certain refinements in the disquisition of respondent court in the affirmance of the trial courts decision, we definitely find the instant petition bereft of merit. The heart of the controversy which is the ultimate key in the resolution of the other issues in the case at bar is the precise determination of the legal significance of the document entitled Receipt of Down Payment which was offered in evidence by both parties. There is no dispute as to the fact that the

10

said document embodied the binding contract between Ramona Patricia Alcaraz on the one hand, and the heirs of Constancio P. Coronel on the other, pertaining to a particular house and lot covered by TCT No. 119627, as defined in Article 1305 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which reads as follows: Art. 1305. A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service. While, it is the position of private respondents that the Receipt of Down Payment embodied a perfected contract of sale, which perforce, they seek to enforce by means of an action for specific performance, petitioners on their part insist that what the document signified was a mere executory contract to sell, subject to certain suspensive conditions, and because of the absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz, who left for the United States of America, said contract could not possibly ripen into a contract of absolute sale. Plainly, such variance in the contending parties contention is brought about by the way each interprets the terms and/or conditions set forth in said private instrument. Withal, based on whatever relevant and admissible evidence may be available on record, this Court, as were the courts below, is now called upon to adjudge what the real intent of the parties was at the time the said document was executed. The Civil Code defines a contract of sale, thus: Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. Sale, by its very nature, is a consensual contract because it is perfected by mere consent. The essential elements of a contract of sale are the following: a) b) c) Consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; Determinate subject matter; and Price certain in money or its equivalent.

Under this definition, a Contract to Sell may not be considered as a Contract of Sale because the first essential element is lacking. In a contract to sell, the prospective seller explicitly reserves the transfer of title to the prospective buyer, meaning, the prospective seller does not as yet agree or consent to transfer ownership of the property subject of the contract to sell until the happening of an event, which for present purposes we shall take as the full payment of the purchase price. What the seller agrees or obliges himself to do is to fulfill his promise to sell the subject property when the entire amount of the purchase price is delivered to him. In other words the full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition, the non-fulfillment of which prevents the obligation to sell from arising and thus, ownership is retained by the prospective seller without further remedies by the prospective buyer. In Roque vs. Lapuz (96 SCRA 741 [1980]), this Court had occasion to rule: Hence, We hold that the contract between the petitioner and the respondent was a contract to sell where the ownership or title is retained by the seller and is not to pass until the full payment of the price, such payment being a positive suspensive condition and failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but simply an event that prevented the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring binding force. Stated positively, upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition which is the full payment of the purchase price, the prospective sellers obligation to sell the subject property by entering into a contract of sale with the prospective buyer becomes demandable as provided in Article 1479 of the Civil Code which states: 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 of the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price. A contract to sell may thus be defined as a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to sell the said property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, that is, full payment of the purchase price. A contract to sell as defined hereinabove, may not even be considered as a conditional contract of sale where the seller may likewise reserve title to the property subject of the sale until the fulfillment of a suspensive condition, because in a conditional contract of sale, the first element of consent is present, although it is conditioned upon the happening of a contingent event which may or may not occur. If the suspensive condition is not fulfilled, the perfection of the contract of sale is completely abated (cf. Homesite and Housing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 777 [1984]). However, if the suspensive condition is fulfilled, the contract of sale is thereby perfected, such that if there had already been previous delivery of the property subject of the sale to the buyer, ownership thereto automatically transfers to the buyer by operation of law without any further act having to be performed by the seller. In a contract to sell, upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition which is the full payment of the purchase price, ownership will not automatically transfer to the buyer although the property may have been previously delivered to him. The prospective seller still has to convey title to the prospective buyer by entering into a contract of absolute sale. It is essential to distinguish between a contract to sell and a conditional contract of sale specially in cases where the subject property is sold by the owner not to the party the seller contracted with, but to a third person, as in the case at bench. In a contract to sell, there being no previous sale of the property, a third person buying such property despite the fulfillment of the suspensive condition such as the full payment of the purchase price, for instance, cannot be deemed a buyer in bad faith and the prospective buyer cannot seek the relief of reconveyance of the property. There is no double sale in such case. Title to the property will transfer to the buyer after registration because there is no defect in the owner-sellers title per se, but the latter, of course, may be sued for damages by the intending buyer.

11

In a conditional contract of sale, however, upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition, the sale becomes absolute and this will definitely affect the sellers title thereto. In fact, if there had been previous delivery of the subject property, the sellers ownership or title to the property is automatically transferred to the buyer such that, the seller will no longer have any title to transfer to any third person. Applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code, such second buyer of the property who may have had actual or constructive knowledge of such defect in the sellers title, or at least was charged with the obligation to discover such defect, cannot be a registrant in good faith. Such second buyer cannot defeat the first buyers title. In case a title is issued to the second buyer, the first buyer may seek reconveyance of the property subject of the sale. With the above postulates as guidelines, we now proceed to the task of deciphering the real nature of the contract entered into by petitioners and private respondents. It is a canon in the interpretation of contracts that the words used therein should be given their natural and ordinary meaning unless a technical meaning was intended (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 586 [1992]). Thus, when petitioners declared in the said Receipt of Down Payment that they -Received from Miss Ramona Patricia Alcaraz of 146 Timog, Quezon City, the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos purchase price of our inherited house and lot, covered by TCT No. 1199627 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, in the total amount of P1,240,000.00. without any reservation of title until full payment of the entire purchase price, the natural and ordinary idea conveyed is that they sold their property. When the Receipt of Down payment is considered in its entirety, it becomes more manifest that there was a clear intent on the part of petitioners to transfer title to the buyer, but since the transfer certificate of title was still in the name of petitioners father, they could not fully effect such transfer although the buyer was then willing and able to immediately pay the purchase price. Therefore, petitioners-sellers undertook upon receipt of the down payment from private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz, to cause the issuance of a new certificate of title in their names from that of their father, after which, they promised to present said title, now in their names, to the latter and to execute the deed of absolute sale whereupon, the latter shall, in turn, pay the entire balance of the purchase price. The agreement could not have been a contract to sell because the sellers herein made no express reservation of ownership or title to the subject parcel of land. Furthermore, the circumstance which prevented the parties from entering into an absolute contract of sale pertained to the sellers themselves (the certificate of title was not in their names) and not the full payment of the purchase price. Under the established facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may safely presume that, had the certificate of title been in the names of petitioners-sellers at that time, there would have been no reason why an absolute contract of sale could not have been executed and consummated right there and then. Moreover, unlike in a contract to sell, petitioners in the case at bar did not merely promise to sell the property to private respondent upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition. On the contrary, having already agreed to sell the subject property, they undertook to have the certificate of title change to their names and immediately thereafter, to execute the written deed of absolute sale. Thus, the parties did not merely enter into a contract to sell where the sellers, after compliance by the buyer with certain terms and conditions, promised to sell the property to the latter. What may be perceived from the respective undertakings of the parties to the contract is that petitioners had already agreed to sell the house and lot they inherited from their father, completely willing to transfer ownership of the subject house and lot to the buyer if the documents were then in order. It just so happened, however, that the transfer certificate of title was then still in the name of their father. It was more expedient to first effect the change in the certificate of title so as to bear their names. That is why they undertook to cause the issuance of a new transfer of the certificate of title in their names upon receipt of the down payment in the amount of P50,000.00. As soon as the new certificate of title is issued in their names, petitioners were committed to immediately execute the deed of absolute sale. Only then will the obligation of the buyer to pay the remainder of the purchase price arise. There is no doubt that unlike in a contract to sell which is most commonly entered into so as to protect the seller against a buyer who intends to buy the property in installment by withholding ownership over the property until the buyer effects full payment therefor, in the contract entered into in the case at bar, the sellers were the ones who were unable to enter into a contract of absolute sale by reason of the fact that the certificate of title to the property was still in the name of their father. It was the sellers in this case who, as it were, had the impediment which prevented, so to speak, the execution of an contract of absolute sale. What is clearly established by the plain language of the subject document is that when the said Receipt of Down Payment was prepared and signed by petitioners Romulo A. Coronel, et. al., the parties had agreed to a conditional contract of sale, consummation of which is subject only to the successful transfer of the certificate of title from the name of petitioners father, Constancio P. Coronel, to their names. The Court significantly notes that this suspensive condition was, in fact, fulfilled on February 6, 1985 (Exh. D; Exh. 4). Thus, on said date, the conditional contract of sale between petitioners and private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz became obligatory, the only act required for the consummation thereof being the delivery of the property by means of the execution of the deed of absolute sale in a public instrument, which petitioners unequivocally committed themselves to do as evidenced by the Receipt of Down Payment. Article 1475, in correlation with Article 1181, both of the Civil Code, plainly applies to the case at bench. Thus, Art. 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts. Art. 1181. In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition. Since the condition contemplated by the parties which is the issuance of a certificate of title in petitioners names was fulfilled on February 6, 1985, the respective obligations of the parties under the contract of sale became mutually demandable, that is, petitioners, as sellers, were obliged to present the transfer certificate of title already in their names to private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz, the buyer, and to immediately execute the deed of absolute sale, while the buyer on her part, was obliged to forthwith pay the balance of the purchase price amounting to P1,190,000.00. It is also significant to note that in the first paragraph in page 9 of their petition, petitioners conclusively admitted that:

12

3. The petitioners-sellers Coronel bound themselves to effect the transfer in our names from our deceased father Constancio P. Coronel, the transfer certificate of title immediately upon receipt of the downpayment above-stated". The sale was still subject to this suspensive condition. (Emphasis supplied.) (Rollo, p. 16) Petitioners themselves recognized that they entered into a contract of sale subject to a suspensive condition. Only, they contend, continuing in the same paragraph, that: . . . Had petitioners-sellers not complied with this condition of first transferring the title to the property under their names, there could be no perfected contract of sale. (Emphasis supplied.) (Ibid.) not aware that they have set their own trap for themselves, for Article 1186 of the Civil Code expressly provides that: Art. 1186. The condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment. Besides, it should be stressed and emphasized that what is more controlling than these mere hypothetical arguments is the fact that the condition herein referred to was actually and indisputably fulfilled on February 6, 1985, when a new title was issued in the names of petitioners as evidenced by TCT No. 327403 (Exh. D; Exh. 4). The inevitable conclusion is that on January 19, 1985, as evidenced by the document denominated as Receipt of Down Payment (Exh. A; Exh. 1), the parties entered into a contract of sale subject to the suspensive condition that the sellers shall effect the issuance of new certificate title from that of their fathers name to their names and that, on February 6, 1985, this condition was fulfilled (Exh. D; Exh. 4). We, therefore, hold that, in accordance with Article 1187 which pertinently provides Art. 1187. The effects of conditional obligation to give, once the condition has been fulfilled, shall retroact to the day of the constitution of the obligation . . . In obligations to do or not to do, the courts shall determine, in each case, the retroactive effect of the condition that has been complied with. the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the perfected contract of sale became mutually due and demandable as of the time of fulfillment or occurrence of the suspensive condition on February 6, 1985. As of that point in time, reciprocal obligations of both seller and buyer arose. Petitioners also argue there could been no perfected contract on January 19, 1985 because they were then not yet the absolute owners of the inherited property. We cannot sustain this argument. Article 774 of the Civil Code defines Succession as a mode of transferring ownership as follows: Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent and value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others by his will or by operation of law. Petitioners-sellers in the case at bar being the sons and daughters of the decedent Constancio P. Coronel are compulsory heirs who were called to succession by operation of law. Thus, at the point their father drew his last breath, petitioners stepped into his shoes insofar as the subject property is concerned, such that any rights or obligations pertaining thereto became binding and enforceable upon them. It is expressly provided that rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent (Article 777, Civil Code; Cuison vs. Villanueva, 90 Phil. 850 [1952]). Be it also noted that petitioners claim that succession may not be declared unless the creditors have been paid is rendered moot by the fact that they were able to effect the transfer of the title to the property from the decedents name to their names on February 6, 1985. Aside from this, petitioners are precluded from raising their supposed lack of capacity to enter into an agreement at that time and they cannot be allowed to now take a posture contrary to that which they took when they entered into the agreement with private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz. The Civil Code expressly states that: Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. Having represented themselves as the true owners of the subject property at the time of sale, petitioners cannot claim now that they were not yet the absolute owners thereof at that time. Petitioners also contend that although there was in fact a perfected contract of sale between them and Ramona P. Alcaraz, the latter breach her reciprocal obligation when she rendered impossible the consummation thereof by going to the United States of America, without leaving her address, telephone number, and Special Power of Attorney (Paragraphs 14 and 15, Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim to the Amended Complaint, p. 2; Rollo, p. 43), for which reason, so petitioners conclude, they were correct in unilaterally rescinding the contract of sale. We do not agree with petitioners that there was a valid rescission of the contract of sale in the instant case. We note that these supposed grounds for petitioners rescission, are mere allegations found only in their responsive pleadings, which by express provision of the rules, are deemed controverted even if no reply is filed by the plaintiffs (Sec. 11, Rule 6, Revised Rules of Court). The records are absolutely bereft of any supporting evidence to

13

substantiate petitioners allegations. We have stressed time and again that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence (Ng Cho Cio vs. Ng Diong, 110 Phil. 882 [1961]; Recaro vs. Embisan, 2 SCRA 598 [1961]). Mere allegation is not an evidence (Lagasca vs. De Vera, 79 Phil. 376 [1947]). Even assuming arguendo that Ramona P. Alcaraz was in the United States of America on February 6, 1985, we cannot justify petitioners-sellers act of unilaterally and extrajudicially rescinding the contract of sale, there being no express stipulation authorizing the sellers to extrajudicially rescind the contract of sale. (cf. Dignos vs. CA, 158 SCRA 375 [1988]; Taguba vs. Vda. De Leon, 132 SCRA 722 [1984]) Moreover, petitioners are estopped from raising the alleged absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz because although the evidence on record shows that the sale was in the name of Ramona P. Alcaraz as the buyer, the sellers had been dealing with Concepcion D. Alcaraz, Ramonas mother, who had acted for and in behalf of her daughter, if not also in her own behalf. Indeed, the down payment was made by Concepcion D. Alcaraz with her own personal Check (Exh. B; Exh. 2) for and in behalf of Ramona P. Alcaraz. There is no evidence showing that petitioners ever questioned Concepcions authority to represent Ramona P. Alcaraz when they accepted her personal check. Neither did they raise any objection as regards payment being effected by a third person. Accordingly, as far as petitioners are concerned, the physical absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz is not a ground to rescind the contract of sale. Corollarily, Ramona P. Alcaraz cannot even be deemed to be in default, insofar as her obligation to pay the full purchase price is concerned. Petitioners who are precluded from setting up the defense of the physical absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz as above-explained offered no proof whatsoever to show that they actually presented the new transfer certificate of title in their names and signified their willingness and readiness to execute the deed of absolute sale in accordance with their agreement. Ramonas corresponding obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price in the amount of P1,190,000.00 (as buyer) never became due and demandable and, therefore, she cannot be deemed to have been in default. Article 1169 of the Civil Code defines when a party in a contract involving reciprocal obligations may be considered in default, to wit: Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something, incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. xxx In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfill his obligation, delay by the other begins. (Emphasis supplied.) There is thus neither factual nor legal basis to rescind the contract of sale between petitioners and respondents. With the foregoing conclusions, the sale to the other petitioner, Catalina B. Mabanag, gave rise to a case of double sale where Article 1544 of the Civil Code will apply, to wit: Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. The record of the case shows that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 25, 1985 as proof of the second contract of sale was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City giving rise to the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of Catalina B. Mabanag on June 5, 1985. Thus, the second paragraph of Article 1544 shall apply. The above-cited provision on double sale presumes title or ownership to pass to the buyer, the exceptions being: (a) when the second buyer, in good faith, registers the sale ahead of the first buyer, and (b) should there be no inscription by either of the two buyers, when the second buyer, in good faith, acquires possession of the property ahead of the first buyer. Unless, the second buyer satisfies these requirements, title or ownership will not transfer to him to the prejudice of the first buyer. In his commentaries on the Civil Code, an accepted authority on the subject, now a distinguished member of the Court, Justice Jose C. Vitug, explains: The governing principle is prius tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyers rights except when the second buyer first registers in good faith the second sale (Olivares vs. Gonzales, 159 SCRA 33). Conversely, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register, since knowledge taints his registration with bad faith (see also Astorga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 58530, 26 December 1984). In Cruz vs. Cabana (G.R. No. 56232, 22 June 1984, 129 SCRA 656), it was held that it is essential, to merit the protection of Art. 1544, second paragraph, that the second realty buyer must act in good faith in registering his deed of sale (citing Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 99, Crisostomo vs. CA, G.R. No. 95843, 02 September 1992). (J. Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 Edition, p. 604). Petitioners point out that the notice of lis pendens in the case at bar was annotated on the title of the subject property only on February 22, 1985, whereas, the second sale between petitioners Coronels and petitioner Mabanag was supposedly perfected prior thereto or on February 18, 1985. The idea conveyed is that at the time petitioner Mabanag, the second buyer, bought the property under a clean title, she was unaware of any adverse claim or previous sale, for which reason she is a buyer in good faith. We are not persuaded by such argument. In a case of double sale, what finds relevance and materiality is not whether or not the second buyer in good faith but whether or not said second buyer registers such second sale in good faith, that is, without knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold.

14

As clearly borne out by the evidence in this case, petitioner Mabanag could not have in good faith, registered the sale entered into on February 18, 1985 because as early as February 22, 1985, a notice of lis pendens had been annotated on the transfer certificate of title in the names of petitioners, whereas petitioner Mabanag registered the said sale sometime in April, 1985. At the time of registration, therefore, petitioner Mabanag knew that the same property had already been previously sold to private respondents, or, at least, she was charged with knowledge that a previous buyer is claiming title to the same property. Petitioner Mabanag cannot close her eyes to the defect in petitioners title to the property at the time of the registration of the property. This Court had occasions to rule that: If a vendee in a double sale registers the sale after he has acquired knowledge that there was a previous sale of the same property to a third party or that another person claims said property in a previous sale, the registration will constitute a registration in bad faith and will not confer upon him any right. (Salvoro vs. Tanega, 87 SCRA 349 [1978]; citing Palarca vs. Director of Land, 43 Phil. 146; Cagaoan vs. Cagaoan, 43 Phil. 554; Fernandez vs. Mercader, 43 Phil. 581.) Thus, the sale of the subject parcel of land between petitioners and Ramona P. Alcaraz, perfected on February 6, 1985, prior to that between petitioners and Catalina B. Mabanag on February 18, 1985, was correctly upheld by both the courts below. Although there may be ample indications that there was in fact an agency between Ramona as principal and Concepcion, her mother, as agent insofar as the subject contract of sale is concerned, the issue of whether or not Concepcion was also acting in her own behalf as a co-buyer is not squarely raised in the instant petition, nor in such assumption disputed between mother and daughter. Thus, We will not touch this issue and no longer disturb the lower courts ruling on this point. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the appealed judgment AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Davide, Jr., and Francisco, JJ., concur. Panganiban, J., no part.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 166862 December 20, 2006

MANILA METAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, petitioner, REYNALDO C. TOLENTINO, intervenor, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondent, DMCI-PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC., intervenor.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. 46153 which affirmed the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 71, Pasig City, in Civil Case No. 58551, and its Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Manila Metal Container Corporation (MMCC). The Antecedents Petitioner was the owner of a 8,015 square meter parcel of land located in Mandaluyong (now a City), Metro Manila. The property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 332098 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal. To secure a P900,000.00 loan it had obtained from respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB), petitioner executed a real estate mortgage over the lot. Respondent PNB later granted petitioner a new credit accommodation of P1,000,000.00; and, on November 16, 1973, petitioner executed an Amendment4 of Real Estate Mortgage over its property. On March 31, 1981, petitioner secured another loan of P653,000.00 from respondent PNB, payable in quarterly installments of P32,650.00, plus interests and other charges.5 On August 5, 1982, respondent PNB filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage and sought to have the property sold at public auction for P911,532.21, petitioner's outstanding obligation to respondent PNB as of June 30, 1982,6 plus interests and attorney's fees.

15

After due notice and publication, the property was sold at public auction on September 28, 1982 where respondent PNB was declared the winning bidder for P1,000,000.00. The Certificate of Sale7 issued in its favor was registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, and was annotated at the dorsal portion of the title on February 17, 1983. Thus, the period to redeem the property was to expire on February 17, 1984. Petitioner sent a letter dated August 25, 1983 to respondent PNB, requesting that it be granted an extension of time to redeem/repurchase the property.8 In its reply dated August 30, 1983, respondent PNB informed petitioner that the request had been referred to its Pasay City Branch for appropriate action and recommendation.9 In a letter10 dated February 10, 1984, petitioner reiterated its request for a one year extension from February 17, 1984 within which to redeem/repurchase the property on installment basis. It reiterated its request to repurchase the property on installment.11 Meanwhile, some PNB Pasay City Branch personnel informed petitioner that as a matter of policy, the bank does not accept "partial redemption."12 Since petitioner failed to redeem the property, the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. 32098 on June 1, 1984, and issued a new title in favor of respondent PNB.13 Petitioner's offers had not yet been acted upon by respondent PNB. Meanwhile, the Special Assets Management Department (SAMD) had prepared a statement of account, and as of June 25, 1984 petitioner's obligation amounted to P1,574,560.47. This included the bid price of P1,056,924.50, interest, advances of insurance premiums, advances on realty taxes, registration expenses, miscellaneous expenses and publication cost.14 When apprised of the statement of account, petitioner remitted P725,000.00 to respondent PNB as "deposit to repurchase," and Official Receipt No. 978191 was issued to it.15 In the meantime, the SAMD recommended to the management of respondent PNB that petitioner be allowed to repurchase the property for P1,574,560.00. In a letter dated November 14, 1984, the PNB management informed petitioner that it was rejecting the offer and the recommendation of the SAMD. It was suggested that petitioner purchase the property for P2,660,000.00, its minimum market value. Respondent PNB gave petitioner until December 15, 1984 to act on the proposal; otherwise, its P725,000.00 deposit would be returned and the property would be sold to other interested buyers.16 Petitioner, however, did not agree to respondent PNB's proposal. Instead, it wrote another letter dated December 12, 1984 requesting for a reconsideration. Respondent PNB replied in a letter dated December 28, 1984, wherein it reiterated its proposal that petitioner purchase the property for P2,660,000.00. PNB again informed petitioner that it would return the deposit should petitioner desire to withdraw its offer to purchase the property.17 On February 25, 1985, petitioner, through counsel, requested that PNB reconsider its letter dated December 28, 1984. Petitioner declared that it had already agreed to the SAMD's offer to purchase the property forP1,574,560.47, and that was why it had paid P725,000.00. Petitioner warned respondent PNB that it would seek judicial recourse should PNB insist on the position.18 On June 4, 1985, respondent PNB informed petitioner that the PNB Board of Directors had accepted petitioner's offer to purchase the property, but for P1,931,389.53 in cash less the P725,000.00 already deposited with it.19 On page two of the letter was a space above the typewritten name of petitioner's President, Pablo Gabriel, where he was to affix his signature. However, Pablo Gabriel did not conform to the letter but merely indicated therein that he had received it.20 Petitioner did not respond, so PNB requested petitioner in a letter dated June 30, 1988 to submit an amended offer to repurchase. Petitioner rejected respondent's proposal in a letter dated July 14, 1988. It maintained that respondent PNB had agreed to sell the property for P1,574,560.47, and that since its P725,000.00 downpayment had been accepted, respondent PNB was proscribed from increasing the purchase price of the property.21 Petitioner averred that it had a net balance payable in the amount of P643,452.34. Respondent PNB, however, rejected petitioner's offer to pay the balance of P643,452.34 in a letter dated August 1, 1989.22 On August 28, 1989, petitioner filed a complaint against respondent PNB for "Annulment of Mortgage and Mortgage Foreclosure, Delivery of Title, or Specific Performance with Damages." To support its cause of action for specific performance, it alleged the following: 34. As early as June 25, 1984, PNB had accepted the down payment from Manila Metal in the substantial amount of P725,000.00 for the redemption/repurchase price of P1,574,560.47 as approved by its SMAD and considering the reliance made by Manila Metal and the long time that has elapsed, the approval of the higher management of the Bank to confirm the agreement of its SMAD is clearly a potestative condition which cannot legally prejudice Manila Metal which has acted and relied on the approval of SMAD. The Bank cannot take advantage of a condition which is entirely dependent upon its own will after accepting and benefiting from the substantial payment made by Manila Metal. 35. PNB approved the repurchase price of P1,574,560.47 for which it accepted P725,000.00 from Manila Metal. PNB cannot take advantage of its own delay and long inaction in demanding a higher amount based on unilateral computation of interest rate without the consent of Manila Metal. Petitioner later filed an amended complaint and supported its claim for damages with the following arguments: 36. That in order to protect itself against the wrongful and malicious acts of the defendant Bank, plaintiff is constrained to engage the services of counsel at an agreed fee of P50,000.00 and to incur litigation expenses of at least P30,000.00, which the defendant PNB should be condemned to pay the plaintiff Manila Metal. 37. That by reason of the wrongful and malicious actuations of defendant PNB, plaintiff Manila Metal suffered besmirched reputation for which defendant PNB is liable for moral damages of at least P50,000.00. 38. That for the wrongful and malicious act of defendant PNB which are highly reprehensible, exemplary damages should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff by way of example or correction for the public good of at least P30,000.00.23 Petitioner prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in its favor, thus:

16

a) Declaring the Amended Real Estate Mortgage (Annex "A") null and void and without any legal force and effect. b) Declaring defendant's acts of extra-judicially foreclosing the mortgage over plaintiff's property and setting it for auction sale null and void. c) Ordering the defendant Register of Deeds to cancel the new title issued in the name of PNB (TCT NO. 43792) covering the property described in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, to reinstate TCT No. 37025 in the name of Manila Metal and to cancel the annotation of the mortgage in question at the back of the TCT No.37025 described in paragraph 4 of this Complaint. d) Ordering the defendant PNB to return and/or deliver physical possession of the TCT No. 37025described in paragraph 4 of this Complaint to the plaintiff Manila Metal. e) Ordering the defendant PNB to pay the plaintiff Manila Metal's actual damages, moral and exemplary damages in the aggregate amount of not less than P80,000.00 as may be warranted by the evidence and fixed by this Honorable Court in the exercise of its sound discretion, and attorney's fees of P50,000.00 and litigation expenses of at least P30,000.00 as may be proved during the trial, and costs of suit. Plaintiff likewise prays for such further reliefs which may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.24 In its Answer to the complaint, respondent PNB averred, as a special and affirmative defense, that it had acquired ownership over the property after the period to redeem had elapsed. It claimed that no contract of sale was perfected between it and petitioner after the period to redeem the property had expired. During pre-trial, the parties agreed to submit the case for decision, based on their stipulation of facts.25 The parties agreed to limit the issues to the following: 1. Whether or not the June 4, 1985 letter of the defendant approving/accepting plaintiff's offer to purchase the property is still valid and legally enforceable. 2. Whether or not the plaintiff has waived its right to purchase the property when it failed to conform with the conditions set forth by the defendant in its letter dated June 4, 1985. 3. Whether or not there is a perfected contract of sale between the parties.26 While the case was pending, respondent PNB demanded, on September 20, 1989, that petitioner vacate the property within 15 days from notice,27 but petitioners refused to do so. On March 18, 1993, petitioner offered to repurchase the property for P3,500,000.00.28 The offer was however rejected by respondent PNB, in a letter dated April 13, 1993. According to it, the prevailing market value of the property was approximately P30,000,000.00, and as a matter of policy, it could not sell the property for less than its market value.29 On June 21, 1993, petitioner offered to purchase the property for P4,250,000.00 in cash.30The offer was again rejected by respondent PNB on September 13, 1993.31 On May 31, 1994, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the amended complaint and respondent PNB's counterclaim. It ordered respondent PNB to refund the P725,000.00 deposit petitioner had made.32 The trial court ruled that there was no perfected contract of sale between the parties; hence, petitioner had no cause of action for specific performance against respondent. The trial court declared that respondent had rejected petitioner's offer to repurchase the property. Petitioner, in turn, rejected the terms and conditions contained in the June 4, 1985 letter of the SAMD. While petitioner had offered to repurchase the property per its letter of July 14, 1988, the amount of P643,422.34 was way below the P1,206,389.53 which respondent PNB had demanded. It further declared that the P725,000.00 remitted by petitioner to respondent PNB on June 4, 1985 was a "deposit," and not a downpayment or earnest money. On appeal to the CA, petitioner made the following allegations: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S LETTER DATED 4 JUNE 1985 APPROVING/ACCEPTING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S OFFER TO PURCHASE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT VALID AND ENFORCEABLE. II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLLANT WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO PURCHASE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEN IT FAILED TO CONFORM WITH CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE IN ITS LETTER DATED 4 JUNE 1985.

17

IV THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT IT WAS THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE WHICH RENDERED IT DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TO COMPLETE THE BALANCE OF THEIR PURCHASE PRICE. V THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO VALID RESCISSION OR CANCELLATION OF SUBJECT CONTRACT OF REPURCHASE. VI THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED AND REFUSED TO SUBMIT THE AMENDED REPURCHASE OFFER. VII THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. VIII THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT AWARDING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ACTUAL, MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, ATTOTRNEY'S FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES.33 Meanwhile, on June 17, 1993, petitioner's Board of Directors approved Resolution No. 3-004, where it waived, assigned and transferred its rights over the property covered by TCT No. 33099 and TCT No. 37025 in favor of Bayani Gabriel, one of its Directors.34 Thereafter, Bayani Gabriel executed a Deed of Assignment over 51% of the ownership and management of the property in favor of Reynaldo Tolentino, who later moved for leave to intervene as plaintiffappellant. On July 14, 1993, the CA issued a resolution granting the motion,35 and likewise granted the motion of Reynaldo Tolentino substituting petitioner MMCC, as plaintiff-appellant, and his motion to withdraw as intervenor.36 The CA rendered judgment on May 11, 2000 affirming the decision of the RTC.37 It declared that petitioner obviously never agreed to the selling price proposed by respondent PNB (P1,931,389.53) since petitioner had kept on insisting that the selling price should be lowered to P1,574,560.47. Clearly therefore, there was no meeting of the minds between the parties as to the price or consideration of the sale. The CA ratiocinated that petitioner's original offer to purchase the subject property had not been accepted by respondent PNB. In fact, it made a counteroffer through its June 4, 1985 letter specifically on the selling price; petitioner did not agree to the counter-offer; and the negotiations did not prosper. Moreover, petitioner did not pay the balance of the purchase price within the sixty-day period set in the June 4, 1985 letter of respondent PNB. Consequently, there was no perfected contract of sale, and as such, there was no contract to rescind. According to the appellate court, the claim for damages and the counterclaim were correctly dismissed by the court a quo for no evidence was presented to support it. Respondent PNB's letter dated June 30, 1988 cannot revive the failed negotiations between the parties. Respondent PNB merely asked petitioner to submit an amended offer to repurchase. While petitioner reiterated its request for a lower selling price and that the balance of the repurchase be reduced, however, respondent rejected the proposal in a letter dated August 1, 1989. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA likewise denied. Thus, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, alleging that: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE IS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE AMOUNT OF PHP725,000.00 PAID BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT AN EARNEST MONEY. III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT TO SIGNIFY ITS CONFORMITY TO THE TERMS CONTAINED IN PNB'S JUNE 4, 1985 LETTER MEANS THAT THERE WAS NO VALID AND LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW THAT NON-PAYMENT OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT OF THE BALANCE OF THE OFFERED PRICE IN THE LETTER OF PNB DATED JUNE 4, 1985, WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF APPROVAL CONSTITUTES NO VALID AND LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. V. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE LETTERS OF PETITIONER-APPELLANT DATED MARCH 18, 1993 AND JUNE 21, 1993, OFFERING TO BUY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT DIFFERENT AMOUNT WERE PROOF THAT THERE IS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE.38

18

The threshold issue is whether or not petitioner and respondent PNB had entered into a perfected contract for petitioner to repurchase the property from respondent. Petitioner maintains that it had accepted respondent's offer made through the SAMD, to sell the property forP1,574,560.00. When the acceptance was made in its letter dated June 25, 1984; it then deposited P725,000.00 with the SAMD as partial payment, evidenced by Receipt No. 978194 which respondent had issued. Petitioner avers that the SAMD's acceptance of the deposit amounted to an acceptance of its offer to repurchase. Moreover, as gleaned from the letter of SAMD dated June 4, 1985, the PNB Board of Directors had approved petitioner's offer to purchase the property. It claims that this was the suspensive condition, the fulfillment of which gave rise to the contract. Respondent could no longer unilaterally withdraw its offer to sell the property for P1,574,560.47, since the acceptance of the offer resulted in a perfected contract of sale; it was obliged to remit to respondent the balance of the original purchase price of P1,574,560.47, while respondent was obliged to transfer ownership and deliver the property to petitioner, conformably with Article 1159 of the New Civil Code. Petitioner posits that respondent was proscribed from increasing the interest rate after it had accepted respondent's offer to sell the property for P1,574,560.00. Consequently, respondent could no longer validly make a counter-offer of P1,931,789.88 for the purchase of the property. It likewise maintains that, although theP725,000.00 was considered as "deposit for the repurchase of the property" in the receipt issued by the SAMD, the amount constitutes earnest money as contemplated in Article 1482 of the New Civil Code. Petitioner cites the rulings of this Court in Villonco v. Bormaheco39 and Topacio v. Court of Appeals.40 Petitioner avers that its failure to append its conformity to the June 4, 1984 letter of respondent and its failure to pay the balance of the price as fixed by respondent within the 60-day period from notice was to protest respondent's breach of its obligation to petitioner. It did not amount to a rejection of respondent's offer to sell the property since respondent was merely seeking to enforce its right to pay the balance of P1,570,564.47. In any event, respondent had the option either to accept the balance of the offered price or to cause the rescission of the contract. Petitioner's letters dated March 18, 1993 and June 21, 1993 to respondent during the pendency of the case in the RTC were merely to compromise the pending lawsuit, they did not constitute separate offers to repurchase the property. Such offer to compromise should not be taken against it, in accordance with Section 27, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. For its part, respondent contends that the parties never graduated from the "negotiation stage" as they could not agree on the amount of the repurchase price of the property. All that transpired was an exchange of proposals and counter-proposals, nothing more. It insists that a definite agreement on the amount and manner of payment of the price are essential elements in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. There was no such agreement in this case. Primarily, the concept of "suspensive condition" signifies a future and uncertain event upon the fulfillment of which the obligation becomes effective. It clearly presupposes the existence of a valid and binding agreement, the effectivity of which is subordinated to its fulfillment. Since there is no perfected contract in the first place, there is no basis for the application of the principles governing "suspensive conditions." According to respondent, the Statement of Account prepared by SAMD as of June 25, 1984 cannot be classified as a counter-offer; it is simply a recital of its total monetary claims against petitioner. Moreover, the amount stated therein could not likewise be considered as the counter-offer since as admitted by petitioner, it was only recommendation which was subject to approval of the PNB Board of Directors. Neither can the receipt by the SAMD of P725,000.00 be regarded as evidence of a perfected sale contract. As gleaned from the parties' Stipulation of Facts during the proceedings in the court a quo, the amount is merely an acknowledgment of the receipt of P725,000.00 as deposit to repurchase the property. The deposit of P725,000.00 was accepted by respondent on the condition that the purchase price would still be approved by its Board of Directors. Respondent maintains that its acceptance of the amount was qualified by that condition, thus not absolute. Pending such approval, it cannot be legally claimed that respondent is already bound by any contract of sale with petitioner. According to respondent, petitioner knew that the SAMD has no capacity to bind respondent and that its authority is limited to administering, managing and preserving the properties and other special assets of PNB. The SAMD does not have the power to sell, encumber, dispose of, or otherwise alienate the assets, since the power to do so must emanate from its Board of Directors. The SAMD was not authorized by respondent's Board to enter into contracts of sale with third persons involving corporate assets. There is absolutely nothing on record that respondent authorized the SAMD, or made it appear to petitioner that it represented itself as having such authority. Respondent reiterates that SAMD had informed petitioner that its offer to repurchase had been approved by the Board subject to the condition, among others, "that the selling price shall be the total bank's claim as of documentation date x x x payable in cash (P725,000.00 already deposited) within 60 days from notice of approval." A new Statement of Account was attached therein indicating the total bank's claim to be P1,931,389.53 less deposit of P725,000.00, or P1,206,389.00. Furthermore, while respondent's Board of Directors accepted petitioner's offer to repurchase the property, the acceptance was qualified, in that it required a higher sale price and subject to specified terms and conditions enumerated therein. This qualified acceptance was in effect a counter-offer, necessitating petitioner's acceptance in return. The Ruling of the Court The ruling of the appellate court that there was no perfected contract of sale between the parties on June 4, 1985 is correct. A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service.41 Under Article 1318 of the New Civil Code, there is no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) Consent of the contracting parties; (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;

19

(3) Cause of the obligation which is established. Contracts are perfected by mere consent which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract.42 Once perfected, they bind other contracting parties and the obligations arising therefrom have the form of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith. The parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.43 By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.44 The absence of any of the essential elements will negate the existence of a perfected contract of sale. As the Court ruled in Boston Bank of the Philippines v. Manalo:45 A definite agreement as to the price is an essential element of a binding agreement to sell personal or real property because it seriously affects the rights and obligations of the parties. Price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. The fixing of the price can never be left to the decision of one of the contracting parties. But a price fixed by one of the contracting parties, if accepted by the other, gives rise to a perfected sale.46 A contract of sale is consensual in nature and is perfected upon mere meeting of the minds. When there is merely an offer by one party without acceptance of the other, there is no contract.47 When the contract of sale is not perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of obligation, serve as a binding juridical relation between the parties.48 In San Miguel Properties Philippines, Inc. v. Huang,49 the Court ruled that the stages of a contract of sale are as follows: (1) negotiation, covering the period from the time the prospective contracting parties indicate interest in the contract to the time the contract is perfected; (2) perfection, which takes place upon the concurrence of the essential elements of the sale which are the meeting of the minds of the parties as to the object of the contract and upon the price; and (3) consummation, which begins when the parties perform their respective undertakings under the contract of sale, culminating in the extinguishment thereof. A negotiation is formally initiated by an offer, which, however, must be certain.50 At any time prior to the perfection of the contract, either negotiating party may stop the negotiation. At this stage, the offer may be withdrawn; the withdrawal is effective immediately after its manifestation. To convert the offer into a contract, the acceptance must be absolute and must not qualify the terms of the offer; it must be plain, unequivocal, unconditional and without variance of any sort from the proposal. In Adelfa Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,51 the Court ruled that: x x x The rule is that except where a formal acceptance is so required, although the acceptance must be affirmatively and clearly made and must be evidenced by some acts or conduct communicated to the offeror, it may be shown by acts, conduct, or words of the accepting party that clearly manifest a present intention or determination to accept the offer to buy or sell. Thus, acceptance may be shown by the acts, conduct, or words of a party recognizing the existence of the contract of sale.52 A qualified acceptance or one that involves a new proposal constitutes a counter-offer and a rejection of the original offer. A counter-offer is considered in law, a rejection of the original offer and an attempt to end the negotiation between the parties on a different basis.53 Consequently, when something is desired which is not exactly what is proposed in the offer, such acceptance is not sufficient to guarantee consent because any modification or variation from the terms of the offer annuls the offer.54 The acceptance must be identical in all respects with that of the offer so as to produce consent or meeting of the minds. In this case, petitioner had until February 17, 1984 within which to redeem the property. However, since it lacked the resources, it requested for more time to redeem/repurchase the property under such terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties.55 The request, which was made through a letter dated August 25, 1983, was referred to the respondent's main branch for appropriate action.56 Before respondent could act on the request, petitioner again wrote respondent as follows: 1. Upon approval of our request, we will pay your goodselves ONE HUNDRED & FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00); 2. Within six months from date of approval of our request, we will pay another FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P450,000.00); and 3. The remaining balance together with the interest and other expenses that will be incurred will be paid within the last six months of the one year grave period requested for.57 When the petitioner was told that respondent did not allow "partial redemption,"58 it sent a letter to respondent's President reiterating its offer to purchase the property.59 There was no response to petitioner's letters dated February 10 and 15, 1984. The statement of account prepared by the SAMD stating that the net claim of respondent as of June 25, 1984 wasP1,574,560.47 cannot be considered an unqualified acceptance to petitioner's offer to purchase the property. The statement is but a computation of the amount which petitioner was obliged to pay in case respondent would later agree to sell the property, including interests, advances on insurance premium, advances on realty taxes, publication cost, registration expenses and miscellaneous expenses. There is no evidence that the SAMD was authorized by respondent's Board of Directors to accept petitioner's offer and sell the property for P1,574,560.47. Any acceptance by the SAMD of petitioner's offer would not bind respondent. As this Court ruled in AF Realty Development, Inc. vs. Diesehuan Freight Services, Inc.:60 Section 23 of the Corporation Code expressly provides that the corporate powers of all corporations shall be exercised by the board of directors. Just as a natural person may authorize another to do certain acts in his behalf, so may the board of directors of a corporation validly delegate

20

some of its functions to individual officers or agents appointed by it. Thus, contracts or acts of a corporation must be made either by the board of directors or by a corporate agent duly authorized by the board. Absent such valid delegation/authorization, the rule is that the declarations of an individual director relating to the affairs of the corporation, but not in the course of, or connected with the performance of authorized duties of such director, are held not binding on the corporation. Thus, a corporation can only execute its powers and transact its business through its Board of Directors and through its officers and agents when authorized by a board resolution or its by-laws.61 It appears that the SAMD had prepared a recommendation for respondent to accept petitioner's offer to repurchase the property even beyond the one-year period; it recommended that petitioner be allowed to redeem the property and pay P1,574,560.00 as the purchase price. Respondent later approved the recommendation that the property be sold to petitioner. But instead of the P1,574,560.47 recommended by the SAMD and to which petitioner had previously conformed, respondent set the purchase price at P2,660,000.00. In fine, respondent's acceptance of petitioner's offer was qualified, hence can be at most considered as a counter-offer. If petitioner had accepted this counter-offer, a perfected contract of sale would have arisen; as it turns out, however, petitioner merely sought to have the counter-offer reconsidered. This request for reconsideration would later be rejected by respondent. We do not agree with petitioner's contention that the P725,000.00 it had remitted to respondent was "earnest money" which could be considered as proof of the perfection of a contract of sale under Article 1482 of the New Civil Code. The provision reads: ART. 1482. Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract. This contention is likewise negated by the stipulation of facts which the parties entered into in the trial court: 8. On June 8, 1984, the Special Assets Management Department (SAMD) of PNB prepared an updated Statement of Account showing MMCC's total liability to PNB as of June 25, 1984 to be P1,574,560.47 and recommended this amount as the repurchase price of the subject property. 9. On June 25, 1984, MMCC paid P725,000.00 to PNB as deposit to repurchase the property. The deposit of P725,000 was accepted by PNB on the condition that the purchase price is still subject to the approval of the PNB Board.62 Thus, the P725,000.00 was merely a deposit to be applied as part of the purchase price of the property, in the event that respondent would approve the recommendation of SAMD for respondent to accept petitioner's offer to purchase the property for P1,574,560.47. Unless and until the respondent accepted the offer on these terms, no perfected contract of sale would arise. Absent proof of the concurrence of all the essential elements of a contract of sale, the giving of earnest money cannot establish the existence of a perfected contract of sale.63 It appears that, per its letter to petitioner dated June 4, 1985, the respondent had decided to accept the offer to purchase the property for P1,931,389.53. However, this amounted to an amendment of respondent's qualified acceptance, or an amended counter-offer, because while the respondent lowered the purchase price, it still declared that its acceptance was subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. That the selling price shall be the total Bank's claim as of documentation date (pls. see attached statement of account as of 5-31-85), payable in cash (P725,000.00 already deposited) within sixty (60) days from notice of approval; 2. The Bank sells only whatever rights, interests and participation it may have in the property and you are charged with full knowledge of the nature and extent of said rights, interests and participation and waive your right to warranty against eviction. 3. All taxes and other government imposts due or to become due on the property, as well as expenses including costs of documents and science stamps, transfer fees, etc., to be incurred in connection with the execution and registration of all covering documents shall be borne by you; 4. That you shall undertake at your own expense and account the ejectment of the occupants of the property subject of the sale, if there are any; 5. That upon your failure to pay the balance of the purchase price within sixty (60) days from receipt of advice accepting your offer, your deposit shall be forfeited and the Bank is thenceforth authorized to sell the property to other interested parties. 6. That the sale shall be subject to such other terms and conditions that the Legal Department may impose to protect the interest of the Bank.64 It appears that although respondent requested petitioner to conform to its amended counter-offer, petitioner refused and instead requested respondent to reconsider its amended counter-offer. Petitioner's request was ultimately rejected and respondent offered to refund its P725,000.00 deposit. In sum, then, there was no perfected contract of sale between petitioner and respondent over the subject property. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner Manila Metal Container Corporation. SO ORDERED.

21

Ynares-Santiago, J., Working Chairperson, Austria-Martinez, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur. Panganiban, C.J., retired as of December 7, 2006.

22