[G.R. No. 109125. December 2, 1994.

ANG YU ASUNCION, ARTHUR GO AND KEH TIONG, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and BUEN REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

Timeline of Events:

 July 29, 1987 a Second Amended Complaint for Specific Performance was filed by Ann Yu Asuncion and Keh
Tiong, et al., against Bobby Cu Unjieng, Rose Cu Unjieng and Jose Tan before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31,
Manila in Civil Case No. 87-41058
o alleging, among others, that plaintiffs are tenants or lessees of residential and commercial spaces owned
by defendants described as Nos. 630-638 Ongpin Street, Binondo, Manila; that they have occupied said
spaces since 1935 and have been religiously paying the rental and complying with all the conditions of
the lease contract
 on several occasions before October 9, 1986, defendants informed plaintiffs that they are offering to sell the
premises and are giving them priority to acquire the same.
o Bobby Cu Unjieng offered a price of P6-million while plaintiffs made a counteroffer of P5-million; that
plaintiffs thereafter asked the defendants to put their offer in writing to which request defendants
acceded
o October 24, 1986 in reply to defendant's letter, plaintiffs wrote them on asking that they specify the
terms and conditions of the offer to sell.
o January 28, 1987 that when plaintiffs did not receive any reply, they sent another letter with the same
request
o July 29, 1987 Asuncion and Tiong filed a second amended complaint for specific performance.
- that since defendants failed to specify the terms and conditions of the offer to sell and because
of information received that defendants were about to sell the property, plaintiffs were
compelled to file the complaint to compel defendants to sell the property to them.
 Defendants filed their answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and interposing a special
defense of lack of cause of action.
 Trial court rendered a decision:
o defendants' offer to sell was never accepted by the plaintiffs for the reason that the parties did not agree
upon the terms and conditions of the proposed sale, hence, there was no contract of sale at all
o should the defendants subsequently offer their property for sale at a price of P11-million or below,
plaintiffs will have the right of first refusal.
 Plaintiffs appealed
 September 21, 1990 in CA-G.R. CV No. 21123. CA rendered a decision affirming the RTC decision with
modifications
o considering the mercurial and uncertain forces in our market economy today. We find no reason not to
grant the same right of first refusal to herein appellants in the event that the subject property is sold for
a price in excess of Eleven Million pesos.
 November 15, 1990 while CA-G.R. CV No. 21123 was pending consideration by this Court Cu Unjieng spouses
executed a Deed of Sale (Annex D, Petition) transferring the property in question to herein petitioner Buen
Realty and Development Corporation, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. That for and in consideration of the sum of FIFTEEN MILLION PESOS (P15,000,000.00), receipt of
which in full is hereby acknowledged, the VENDORS hereby sells, transfers and conveys for and in
favor of the VENDEE, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, the above-described property
with all the improvements found therein including all the rights and interest in the said property free
from all liens and encumbrances of whatever nature, except the pending ejectment proceeding;
2. That the VENDEE shall pay the Documentary Stamp Tax, registration fees for the transfer of title in
his favor and other expenses incidental to the sale of above-described property including capital
gains tax and accrued real estate taxes.'

"As a consequence of the sale, TCT No. 105254/T-881 in the name of the Cu Unjieng spouses was
cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. 195816 was issued in the name of petitioner on December 3,
1990.

 Appeal to SC
 May 6, 1991 denied the appeal on May 6, 1991 'for insufficiency in form and substances'
 July 1, 1991, petitioner as the new owner of the subject property wrote a letter to the lessees demanding that
the latter vacate the premises
 July 16, 1991, the lessees wrote a reply to petitioner stating that petitioner brought the property subject to the
notice of lis pendens regarding Civil Case No. 87-41058 annotated on TCT No. 105254/T-881 in the name of the
Cu Unjiengs.
 August 27, 1991 lessees filed a Motion for Execution of the Decision in Civil Case No. 87-41058 as modified by
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21123.
 August 30, 1991 respondent Judge issued an order
 o the highest tribunal in its resolution dated May 6, 1991 in G.R. No. L-97276, had now become final and
executory.
o June 6, 1991 As a consequence, there was an Entry of Judgment by the Supreme Court stating that the
aforesaid modified decision had already become final and executory.
o defendants are hereby ordered to execute the necessary Deed of Sale of the property in litigation in
favor of plaintiffs Ang Yu Asuncion, Keh Tiong and Arthur Go for the consideration of P15 Million pesos in
recognition of plaintiffs' right of first refusal and that a new Transfer Certificate of Title be issued in favor
of the buyer.
o 'All previous transactions involving the same property notwithstanding the issuance of another title to
Buen Realty Corporation, is hereby set aside as having been executed in bad faith.
 September 22, 1991 respondent Judge issue another order, the dispositive portion of which reads:
o let there be Writ of Execution issue in the above-entitled case directing the Deputy Sheriff Ramon
Enriquez of this Court to implement said Writ of Execution ordering the defendants among others to
comply with the aforesaid Order of this Court within a period of one (1) week from receipt of this Order
and for defendants to execute the necessary Deed of Sale of the property in litigation in favor of the
plaintiffs Ang Yu Asuncion, Keh Tiong and Arthur Go for the consideration of P15,000,000.00 and
ordering the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila, to cancel and set aside the title already issued in
favor of Buen Realty Corporation which was previously executed between the latter and defendants and
to register the new title in favor of the aforesaid plaintiffs Ang Yu Asuncion, Keh Tiong and Arthur Go.
 September 27, 1991 corresponding writ of execution was issued
 04 December 1991 appellate court, on appeal to it by private respondent, set aside and declared without force
and effect the above questioned orders of the court a quo.
 SC affirms decision of CA

Summary of Facts: Asuncion & Tiong were lessees of the Unjiengs and Tan. Talks of an offer to sell the leased properties
were done on several occasions before Oct. 9, 1986. The Unjiengs offered the property for 6 million but Asuncion and
Tiong counteroffered for 5 million. They requested that the agreements be made in writing to which the Unjiengs agreed
to but Asuncion and Tiong received no further reply even after multiple attempts. This prompted them to file for specific
performance to force the Unjiengs to sell the property to them. Originally, the RTC and CA found that there was no
perfected contract but granted the petitioners the right of first refusal. However, pending the appeal to SC, the Unjiengs
sold the property to Buen Realty and Development Corporation who then proceeded to send letters demanding that
Asuncion and Tiong vacate the premises. Asuncion and Tiong then proceeded to file for Motion of Execution of the CA
resolution for right of first refusal which was affirmed by the SC. and ruled that the title issued to Buen be set aside due
to bad faith. Buen Filed a petition with the CA and a new decision was promulgated setting aside the previous decisions
on the case and revoking the execution.

RTC Original Decision: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs
summarily dismissing the complaint subject to the aforementioned condition that if the defendants subsequently decide
to offer their property for sale for a purchase price of Eleven Million Pesos or lower, then the plaintiffs has the option to
purchase the property or of first refusal, otherwise, defendants need not offer the property to the plaintiffs if the
purchase price is higher than Eleven Million Pesos.

CA Original decision: In resume, there was no meeting of the minds between the parties concerning the sale of the
property. Absent such requirement, the claim for specific performance will not lie. Appellants' demand for actual, moral
and exemplary damages will likewise fail as there exists no justifiable ground for its award. 'WHEREFORE, finding the
appeal unmeritorious, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, but subject to the following modification: The
court a quo in the aforestated decision gave the plaintiffs-appellants the right of first refusal only if the property is sold
for a purchase price of Eleven Million pesos or lower; however, considering the mercurial and uncertain forces in our
market economy today. We find no reason not to grant the same right of first refusal to herein appellants in the event
that the subject property is sold for a price in excess of Eleven Million pesos. No pronouncement as to costs.

SC Original Decision: WHEREFORE, defendants are hereby ordered to execute the necessary Deed of Sale of the property
in litigation in favor of plaintiffs Ang Yu Asuncion, Keh Tiong and Arthur Go for the consideration of P15 Million pesos in
recognition of plaintiffs' right of first refusal and that a new Transfer Certificate of Title be issued in favor of the buyer.

'All previous transactions involving the same property notwithstanding the issuance of another title to Buen Realty
Corporation, is hereby set aside as having been executed in bad faith.

CA New Decision: set aside and declared without force and effect the above questioned orders of the court a quo.

Issue:

Held: We affirm the decision of the appellate court.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, we UPHOLD the Court of Appeals in ultimately setting aside the questioned Orders, dated 30
August 1991 and 27 September 1991, of the court a quo. Costs against petitioners.
[G.R. No. 211564. November 20, 2017.]

BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. SCREENEX, 1 INC., represented by ALEXANDER G. YU, respondent.

Summary of Facts: Sometime in 1991, [Evangelista] obtained a loan from respondent Screenex, Inc. which issued two (2)
checks to [Evangelista]. The first check was UCPB Check No. 275345 for P1,000,000 and the other one is China Banking
Corporation Check No. BDO 8159110 for P500,000. There were also vouchers of Screenex that were signed by the
accused evidencing that he received the 2 checks in acceptance of the loan granted to him. As security for the payment
of the loan, [Evangelista] gave two (2) open-dated checks: UCPB Check Nos. 616656 and 616657, both pay to the order of
Screenex, Inc. From the time the checks were issued by [Evangelista], they were held in safe keeping together with the
other documents and papers of the company by Philip Gotuaco, Sr., father-in-law of respondent Alexander Yu, until the
former's death on 19 November 2004. Before the checks were deposited, there was a personal demand from the family
for [Evangelista] to settle the loan and likewise a demand letter sent by the family lawyer. On 25 August 2005, petitioner
was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 in Criminal Case Nos. 343615-16 filed with the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, Branch 61 alleging that above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously make out, draw, and issue to SCREENEX, INC the checks well knowing that at the time of issue thereof,
said accused did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the face amount of
such check upon its presentment which check when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date
thereof, was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and despite receipt of
notice of such dishonor, the said accused failed to pay said payee the face amount of said checks or to make
arrangement for full payment thereof within five (5) banking days after receiving notice. Petitioner pleaded not guilty
when arraigned.

METC Ruling: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered acquitting the accused BENJAMIN EVANGELISTA for failure of the
prosecution to establish all the elements constituting the offense of Violation of B.P. 22 for two (2) counts. However,
accused is hereby ordered to pay his civil obligation to the private complainant in the total amount of ONE MILLION FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P1,500,000) plus twelve (12%) percent interest per annum from the date of the filing of
the two sets of Information until fully paid and to pay the costs of suit.

Evangelista filed a timely Notice of Appeal and raised two errors of the MeTC (1) the lower court erred in not
appreciating the fact that the prosecution failed to prove the civil liability of Evangelista to private complainant; and (2)
any civil liability attributable to Evangelista had been extinguished and/or was barred by prescription.

RTC Ruling: dismissed the appeal and affirmed the MeTC decision in toto. The Motion for Reconsideration 24 was
likewise denied.

As to the defense of prescription, the same cannot be successfully invoked in this appeal. The 10-year prescriptive period
of the action under Art. 1144 of the New Civil Code is computed from the time the right of action accrues. The terms and
conditions of the loan obligation have not been shown, as only the checks evidence the same. It has not been shown
when the loan obligation was to mature such that there is no basis to show or from which to infer, when the cause of
action (non-payment of the loan) which would give the obligee the right to seek redress for the non-payment of the
obligation, accrued. In other words, the reckoning point of prescription has not been established. Evangelista filed a
petition for review 26 before the CA insisting that the lower court erred in finding him liable to pay the sum with interest
at 12% per annum from the date of filing until full payment. He further alleged that witness Yu was not competent to
testify on the loan transaction; that the insertion of the date on the checks without the knowledge of the accused was an
alteration that avoided the checks; and that the obligation had been extinguished by prescription.

CA Ruling: CA denied the petition. 34 It held that (1) the reckoning time for the prescriptive period began when the
instrument was issued and the corresponding check returned by the bank to its depositor; 35 (2) the issue of prescription
was raised for the first time on appeal with the RTC; 36 (3) the writing of the date on the check cannot be considered as
an alteration, as the checks were undated, so there was nothing to change to begin with; 37 (4) the loan obligation was
never denied by petitioner, who claimed that it was settled in 1992, but failed to show any proof of payment.

Held: We rule in favor of petitioner.

The delivery of the check produces the effect of payment when through the fault of the creditor they have been
impaired – the failure to encash the checks within a reasonable time after issue, or more than 10 years in this instance,
not only results in the checks becoming stale but also in the obligation to pay being deemed fulfilled by operation of law.

Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver
such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. The delivery of promissory notes payable to
order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have
been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired. I n the meantime, the action derived
from the original obligation shall be held in the abeyance.

This rule is similarly stated in the Negotiable Instruments Law as follows:

Sec. 186. Within what time a check must be presented. — A check must be presented for payment within a reasonable
time after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.

Others:

Prescription has set in – In BP 22 cases, the action for the corresponding civil obligation is deemed instituted with the
criminal action and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized. Section 119 of the
NIL, however, states that a negotiable instrument like a check may be discharged by any other act which will discharge a
simple contract for the payment of money, to wit: Sec. 119. Instrument; how discharged. — A negotiable instrument is
discharged: (d) By any other act which will discharge a simple contract for the payment of money. A check therefore is
subject to prescription of actions upon a written contract. Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides: The following actions
must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues: 1) Upon a written contract; Barring any
extrajudicial or judicial demand that may toll the 10-year prescription period and any evidence which may indicate any
other time when the obligation to pay is due, the cause of action based on a check is reckoned from the date indicated
on the check. If the check is undated, however, as in the present petition, the cause of action is reckoned from the date
of the issuance of the check. While the space for the date on a check may also be filled, it must, however, be filled up
strictly in accordance with the authority given and within a reasonable time. Assuming that Yu had authority to insert
the dates in the checks, the fact that he did so after a lapse of more than 10 years from their issuance certainly cannot
qualify as changes made within a reasonable time.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 1 October 2013 and Resolution dated 27
February 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 110680 are SET ASIDE. The Complaint against petitioner is hereby DISMISSED.
[G.R. No. 147410. February 5, 2004.]

THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., petitioner,vs.ASSET BUILDERS CORPORATION, respondent.

[G.R. No. 147410. February 5, 2004.]

THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., petitioner,vs.ASSET BUILDERS CORPORATION, respondent.