You are on page 1of 2

Jovan Land v. CA & Eugenio Quesada, Inc.


1. Jovan Land is a corporation engaged in the real estate business.
2. Joseph Sy President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Jovan Land.
3. Eugenio Quesada an owner of the Q Building located on an 801 sq. m. lot at the corner of
Mayhaligue Street and Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila.

1. Mayhaligue Property of Eugenio Quesada

1. Joseph Sy through his co-petitioner Consolacion P. Medoza, learned that Quesada is selling his
Mayhaligue Property;
2. Sy sent Quesada an offer of P10.25m NOT accepted by Conrado Quesada (General Manager);
3. 2nd offer same price but he will shoulder the documentary stamp tax, transfer tax, registration
fees and notarial charges and a check for one million (1M) pesos drawn against the Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank as earnest money Rejected by Conrado Quesada;
4. 3rd offer for P12m, similar check for 1M as earnest money;
5. Annotated on the 3rd offer was the phrase Received original, 9-4-89 beside which appears the
signature of Conrado Quesada;
6. Petitioner believes that there already exists a valid, perfected agreement to sell the Mayhaligue
7. Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and collection of sum of money with

1. Ruled in favor of Eugenio Quesada;
2. That both parties have not gone through the negotiation stage;
3. There is no contract whatsoever that was perfected;
4. The complaint was dismissed for lack of cause of action

1. Upheld the decision of the Trial Court.

1. CA and RTC ruling were agreed;
2. That in order to have a valid contract of sale, all the essential elements must exist: Consent,
Object, Price or consideration;
3. That there was no consent in this case at all since the annotation does not mean that Eugenio
Quesada nor Conrado Quesada gave consent and accepted the offer;
4. Neither the check was received on the said date;

5. That the receipt reveals that the same can neither be regarded as a contract of sale nor a
promise to sell;
6. There is neither written nor implied acceptance of the offer;
7. That it is merely a memorandum of receipt by the former to the latter;
8. That the element of consent is lacking and therefore there is neither valid nor enforceable
9. Oft-repeated doctrine;
10. Petition is denied.