23 enrico eulogio v spouses clemente apeles and luz apeles Facts Spouses apeles owned a house and lot which was leased to Arturo eulogio, enrico’s father. Upon arturo’s death, enrico succeeded as lessor and used the property as his residence and usiness !uying and selling of imported cars." #n $an %, &'(), apeles and enrico entered into a contract of lease with option to purchase the said property. *he contract a+orded enrico, efore the e,piration of the three year lease period, the option to purchase the property for a price not e,ceeding &.-.. efore the e,piration, enrico e,ercised his option y communicating verally and in writing to luz, ut the spouses supposedly ignore such manifestation, and which prompted enrico to see/ recourse from arangay for the enforcement of his right, ut despite several notices, the spouses failed to appear efore the arangy for settlement proceedings, hence the arangay issued to enrico a certi0cate to 0le action. #n $an 2%, &''), the spouses wrote a letter to enrico demanding payment of his rental arrears from $an &''& to 1ecemer &''% and to vacate the property as the spouses has a need for it. 2nrico instituted on fe 23 &''' a complaint for speci0c performance with damages against the spouses at rtc, which decided in his favour. *he 3A reversed the decision, hence this petition. 4ssue5 whether the option contract was valid 6uling. *he option contract was not valid. Under the law, a promise to uy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally demandale. An accepted unilateral promise to uy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is inding upon the promissory if the promise is supported y a consideration distinct from the price. 4n this case, the option contract was not founded on a consideration distinct from the price. *he only consideration agreed upon y the parties in the said contract is the supposed purchase price for the su$ect property in the amount not e,ceeding 7&.- ., which could not e deemed to e the same consideration for the option contract since the law and $urisprudence e,plicitly dictate that for the option contract to e valid, it must e supported y a consideration separate and distinct from the price. 7etition is denied.
Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful