SALES - Laforteza and de Ape
SALES - Laforteza and de Ape
SALES - Laforteza and de Ape
LOWER COURT: The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the Alonzo Machuca and
against the defendant heirs of the late Francisco Q. Laforteza,.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, CA: This affirmed with the decision of the lower
court.
Hence this petition wherein the petitioners raise the issues:
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the MOA is an OPTION CONTRACT, CONTRACT TO SELL or a
CONTRACT OF SALE.
2) WON the six-month period during which the respondent would be in possession
of the property as lessee was a period within which to exercise an option.
HELD: In the case at bench, there was a perfected agreement between the petitioners and the
respondent whereby the petitioners obligated themselves to transfer the ownership of and
deliver the house and lot located at 7757 Sherwood St., Marcelo Green Village, Paraaque and
the respondent to pay the price amounting to six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00). All
the elements of a contract of sale were thus present.The elements of a valid contract of
sale under Article 1458 of the Civil Code are (1) consent or meeting of the minds; (2)
determinate subject matter and (3) price certain money or its equivalent.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioners were ready to comply with their
obligation (and Machuca cannot), we find that rescission of the contract will still not prosper.
The rescission of a sale of an immovable property is specifically governed by Article 1592 of
the New Civil Code, which reads:
In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been stipulated that upon failure
to pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall of right take place,
the vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the period, as long as no demand for
rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or by a notarial act. After
the demand, the court may not grant him a new term.
It is not disputed that the petitioners did not make a judicial or notarial demand for rescission.
2) WON the six-month period during which the respondent would be in possession
of the property as lessee was a period within which to exercise an option.
The six-month period, during which the respondent would be in possession of the property as
lessee, was clearly not a period within which to exercise an option. An option is a contract
granting a privilege to buy or sell within an agreed time and at a determined price. An option
contract is a separate and distinct contract from that which the parties may enter into upon
the consummation of the option. An option must be supported by consideration. An option
contract is governed by the second paragraph of Article 1479 of the Civil Code, which reads:
Art. 1479. An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price
certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct
from the price.
In the present case, the six-month period merely delayed the demandability of the contract of
sale and did not determine its perfection for after the expiration of the six-month period, there
was an absolute obligation on the part of the petitioners and the respondent to comply with
the terms of the sale.
VDA. DE APE VS CA
FACTS: Cleopas Ape died in 1950 and left a parcel of land (Lot 2319) to his 11 children. The
children never formally divided the property amongst themselves except through hantal-hantal