You are on page 1of 2

VALDERAMA VS.

MACALDE (DIGEST)
FACTS:
Private Respondent Macalde rents two-thirds of a parcel of
land owned by Albano; while, Petitioner Valderama rents onethird the said parcel of land. A few years later, PD No. 1517 was
issued which provides the right of first refusal to tenants who had
been residing in the land for more than ten years.Petitioner
expressed her desire to purchase the parcel of land to Albano. She
suggested to the later that they discuss the price, the terms and
conditions of the sale. The latter gave no response. A few months
later, Albano informed private respondent that she had already
sold the land. The latter did not divulge the buyer; but, petitioner,
in a way, found out that it was petitioner Valderama. Parties went
to the Barangay but the said dispute was not settled. Albano
alleged that the said parcel of land was not covered by PD 1517;
while, petitioner alleged that Macalde waived their preferential
right to buy the property since they failed to exercise the right
when Albano first offered the property to them, since, she was
informed, before she decided to purchase the land, that Albano
had already offered the property to the Macaldes but refused.
Private Respondent filed a Complaint against Albano and
Valderama for annulment of sale, cancellation of title,
reconveyance and damages with the Regional Trial Court.RTC
ruled in favor of the Macaldes. Petitioner filed petition and motion
for reconsideration to the Court of Appeals which were denied.
ISSUES:
Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court
of Appeals W/N Private Respondent’s Right of First Refusal Holds?
HELD:
The court dismissed the petition. Waiver of right of first
refusal requires a note or memorandum. Verbal offer may not be
sufficient basis to support alleged waiver. For a waiver of rights to
exist, three elements are essential: (a) existence of a right; (b) the
knowledge of the evidence thereof; and (c) an intention to

the petitioners and Albano failedto adduce sufficient.relinquish such right. Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be easily construed as surrender thereof. competent and credible evidence that the respondents had waived their right of first refusal to buy the property. . There must thus be persuasive evidence of an actual intention to relinquish the right. the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against the existence and validity of such waiver Thus.