GR; 105 SCRA 359;

Section 10, Article II Section 10, Article II states that The State shall promote social justice in all
phases of national development. Salonga vs. Farrales Facts: 1. Farrales was the titled owner of a
parcel of residential land that was leased. 2. Prior to the acquisition by Farrales of the aforesaid land,
Salonga was already a lessee of some portion of the land. She had built a house and paid rentals
thereon. 3. Sometime prior to November 1968, Farrales filed an ejectment case (one of the old forms
of action for recovery of the possession of real property) for nonpayment of rentals against Salonga.
The lower court rendered a decision in favor of Farrales and ordered Salonga and the other lessees
(Pascual et al.) to vacate the portion occupied by them and to pay rentals in arrears, attorneys fees
and costs. 4. Even before the rendition of the decision of the lower court, Farrales sold to Pascual et
al. (the other lessees of Farrales) the areas occupied by them. 5. Salonga offered to purchase from
Farrales the portion of land that Salonga was leasing. Farrales persistently refused the offer and
insisted to execute the judgment rendered in the ejectment case. Hence if Salongas offer to
purchase was persistently refused by Farrales, it is obvious that no meeting of the minds took place
and no contract was ever perfected between them. It was revealed that Farrales wanted the
payment of the portion of land under consideration to be in cash but Salonga did not have any
money for that purpose that is why Farrales persistently refused to sell the portion of the leased land
to the lessee. Issue: WON the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint of Salonga on the
ground that no legal contract exists between Farrales and Salonga. Held: Contracts are only
enforceable from the moment of perfection. In the case at bar, Farrales rejected and did not accept
the offer of Salonga to buy the land in question. There being no consent there is, therefore, no
contract to sell to speak of. In the case of the other lessees (Pascual et al.) who were able to buy the
portion of land that they occupy, there was an existing contract between them and Farrales, unlike
Salonga who does not have the right to buy the land in question because the contract between her
and Farrales is non-existent. Section 10, Article II states that The State shall promote social
justice in all phases of national development. The aforementioned provision is applicable to the
case at bar. The social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners who are
also entitled for protection under our Constitution. The social justice consecrated in our Constitution
was not intended to take away rights from a person and give them to another who is not entitled
thereto. The plea for social justice cannot nullify the law on obligations and contracts. Supreme
Courts Decision: The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit and the judgment appealed is hereby
affirmed.