#18 DIHIANSAN vs.
CA
FACTS:
Jose Serrano is the registered owner of a land along Ateneo Ave., Naga City.
The Archbishop of Caceres signified the intention of donating to Naga, portions
of land which it owned on both sides of the Ateneo Ave. As the donation did not
materialize, the Archbishop offered to sell the land to adjoining owners of
properties. Among the said adjacent owners was Serrano.
Upon knowing of Serrano's preferential right to purchase said property,
Benjamin Dihiansan requested Serrano to allow him to purchase the property
subject to certain conditions. Serrano agreed.
Dihiansan executed a contract in Serrano's favor obligating himself to re-sell the
property at the price of P2,500. In the same contract, Dihiansan bound himself
not to sub-lease the property to any other person or entity while Serrano had not
yet re-purchased it.
In another document signed in the presence of the Archbishop of Caceres,
Dihiansan further obligated himself to pay Serrano a monthly "honorarium" of
until Serrano purchased the lot at the Ateneo Ave.
After several verbal demands had failed, Serrano exacted in writing that
Dihiansan re-sell the property to him. Dihiansan refused.
Serrano took the matter to court. It was upon reading the answer that Serrano
came to know that Dihiansan had sold the property to Ramon King for P4,500.
In his Answer, Dihiansan contended that he had acquired the property prior to
the execution of the said contract without any conditions; that said contract was
executed without the knowledge and consent of his wife; that the document
wherein he obligated himself to pay a monthly honorarium to Serrano is void ab
initio for being devoid of any consideration; that the land described in the
contract is different from that described in the complaint; that he is no longer the
owner of the land having sold the same to Ramon King.
Ramon King contended that he is the absolute owner of the land, having
purchased it in good faith and for value.
RULING:
RTC Ruled in favor of Serrano and held that Dihiansan has not complied with
the obligation imposed upon him by the contract which is valid and binding
upon him.
CA Affirmed RTCs decision.
SC Affirmed the decision of CA.
ISSUE: Whether the contract is not valid for lack of cause or consideration?
HELD/RATIO: NO!
Dihiansan's allegation that the contract is null and void for lack of cause or
consideration is untenable
The consideration is Serranos preferential right to buy the property in question
from the owner. The contract clearly stipulates that Dihiansan shall re-sell the
disputed property to Serrano. The contract is the law between the parties. When
the words of a contract are plain and readily understandable, there is no room for
construction. As the parties' agreement are reduced in writing, the rule applies
that their agreement is to be "considered as containing all such terms and there
can be between the parties and their successors-in-interest no evidence of the
terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing.
DOCTRINE:
Art. 1350. In onerous contracts the cause is understood to be, for each
contracting party, the prestation or promise of a thing or service by the other; in
remuneratory ones, the service or benefit which is remunerated; and in contracts
of pure beneficence, the mere liberality of the benefactor.
The agreement in the contract is a binding law between the parties.