RAET V CA

FACTS:

Petitioners Cesar and Elviira Raet (the spouses Raet) and petitioners Rex and Edna Mitra (Spouses Mitra) negotiated with Amparo Gatus
concerning the possibility of bu*ying the rights of the latter to certain units at the Las Villas de Sto. Nino Subdivision in Meycauyan,
Bulacan.

This subdivision ws developed by private respondent Phil Ville Development and Housing Corporation (PVDHC) primarily for parties
qualified to obtain loans from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).

Spouses Raet and Spouses Mira paid Gatus the total amounts of P40,000 and P35,000 respectively for which they were issued receipts
by Gatus in her own name

Both spouses applied directly with PVDHC for the purchase of units in the said subdivision. As they were not GSIS members, they looked
for members who could act as accommodation parties by allowing them to use their policies. PVDHC would process the applications for
the purchase of the units upon the approval by the GSIS of petitioners’ loan application

Spouses Raet presented GSIS policy of Ernesto Casidsid, while the spouses Mitra that of Dena Lim. The former paid P32,653 while the
latter paid P27,000 to PVDHC on the understanding that these accounts would be credited to the purchase prices of the units which will
be determined after the approval of their loan applications with the GSIS.

Spouses Raet were allowed to occupy the unit built on Lot 4, Block 67, Phase 4A of the subdivision while Spouses Mitra were given the
unit on Lot 7, Block 61, Phase 4A thereof

GSIS, however, disapproved the loan applications of both spouses. They were advised by PVDHC to seek other sources of financing but
were still allowed to remain in the said premises

Failure of both spouses to raise money, PVDHC demanded them to vacate the units they were occupying and ejectment cases were filed
against them

ISSUE: W/N there were perfected contracts of sale between petitioners and private respondent PVDHC involving the units in question

RULING: No

SC: Parties in this case had not reached any agreement with regard to the sale of the units in question

Records do not show the total costs of the units in question and the payment schemes therefore. The figures referred to by both spouses
were mere estimates given to them by Gatus. The parties’ transactions thus, lacked the requisites ressential for the perfection of contracts

Both spouses dealt with Gatus who was not the agent of PVDHC. The criminal case for estafa against her was dismissed because it was
found out that she never represeneted herself to be an agent of PVDHC

Both spouses knew from the beginning that Gatus was negotiating with them in her own behalf and not as an agent of PVDHC

There is thus no basis for the finding of HLURB Arbiter that Gatus was the agent of PVDHC with respect to the transactions in question

Since PVDHC had no knowledge of the figures Gatus gave to both spouses as estimates of the costs of the units, it could not have ratified
the same at the time the latter applied for the purchase of the units. PVDHC was to enter into agreements concerning subject units with
both spouses only upon approval of their loan applications with GSIS which failed to materialize

There are no written contracts to evidence the alleged sales. If both spouses and PVDHC had indeed entered into contracts involving
said units, it is rather strange that contracts of such importance have not been reduced in writing