Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PRC Land Sale Affirmed Despite Occupancy

    Uploaded by

    Krizzle de la Peña
    23 views1 page
    The Philippine Realty Corporation owned land that was leased to Maglente for three years, with a right of first refusal to purchase. Maglente then subleased to Gabelo without permission. When PRC offered to sell the land, Maglente exercised her right to purchase. Gabelo argued they had better rights as occupants, but the courts ruled that PRC could sell to whoever was interested, as the mere occupancy of Gabelo did not obligate PRC to sell to them. There was a valid contract between PRC and Maglente based on the offer, acceptance, consent, and subject matter as required by law. Therefore, the petition of Gabelo was denied.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5. Gabelo v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Philippine Realty Corporation owned land that was leased to Maglente for three years, with a right of first refusal to purchase. Maglente then subleased to Gabelo without permission. When PRC offered to sell the land, Maglente exercised her right to purchase. Gabelo argued they had better rights as occupants, but the courts ruled that PRC could sell to whoever was interested, as the mere occupancy of Gabelo did not obligate PRC to sell to them. There was a valid contract between PRC and Maglente based on the offer, acceptance, consent, and subject matter as required by law. Therefore, the petition of Gabelo was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    23 views1 page

    PRC Land Sale Affirmed Despite Occupancy

    Uploaded by

    Krizzle de la Peña
    The Philippine Realty Corporation owned land that was leased to Maglente for three years, with a right of first refusal to purchase. Maglente then subleased to Gabelo without permission. When PRC offered to sell the land, Maglente exercised her right to purchase. Gabelo argued they had better rights as occupants, but the courts ruled that PRC could sell to whoever was interested, as the mere occupancy of Gabelo did not obligate PRC to sell to them. There was a valid contract between PRC and Maglente based on the offer, acceptance, consent, and subject matter as required by law. Therefore, the petition of Gabelo was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Gabelo v.

    CA
    GR No. 111743 October 8, 1998
    Facts:

    Philippine Realty Corporation owns a land in Intramuros with an area of 675 square meters. It was leased
    to Maglente for three years. Lessee was given Right of First Refusal. The lease contract also prohibits
    encumbrance without the lessor’s assent. Maglente leased it to Gabelo, at. al. without the knowledge of the
    owner. Maglente was informed that the land will be sold and the latter manifested to exercise his priority to buy
    the land. Maglente paid downpayment of P100,000 for the entire amount of P1.2M. Petitioners were informed
    of the sale and that they were advised to vacate the premises. They filed case with the argument that they have
    a better right to the land because they were occupants. They added that the co-buyers of Maglente never
    occupied the land. RTC frowned upon their arguments and ordered the execution of the contract to sell/contract
    of sale. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.

    Issue:

    W/N the PRC can sell this to non-occupants other than Maglente.

    Ruling:

    Yes. PRC is free to sell the land to whoever is interested. The mere fact that the petitioners are actual
    occupants cannot compel PRC to enter into a contract with them. PRC offered the subject lot for sale to
    respondent Maglente and her group through its Junior Trust and Property Officers. Respondent Maglente and
    her group accepted such offer through a letter addressed to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, dated
    February 2, 1988, manifesting their intention to purchase the property as provided for under the lease contract.
    Thus, there was already an offer and acceptance giving rise to a valid contract. The requisites under Article 1318
    of the Civil Code 4 for a perfected contract have been met.

    There is no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) Consent of the contracting parties: (2)
    Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) Cause of the obligation which is established.

    The argument that the parties didn’t affix their signature is of no moment since there have been meeting
    of the minds and that is enough to constitute a valid contract. Petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and CA
    decision

    You might also like