10-Jovan Land Vs CA - Full Case
10-Jovan Land Vs CA - Full Case
10-Jovan Land Vs CA - Full Case
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
writing which is indispensably necessary in order that the perfected contract could
be enforced under the Statute of Frauds. 1
Since the trial court dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of cause of action, petitioner
appealed 2 to respondent Court of Appeals before which it assigned the following errors:
1. The Court a quo failed to appreciate that there was already a perfected contract
of sale between Jovan Land, Inc. and the private respondent];
2. The Court a quo erred in its conclusion that there was no implied acceptance of
the offer by appellants to appellee [private respondent];
3. The Court a quo was in error where it concluded that the contract of sale was
unenforceable;
4. The Court a quo failed to rule that appellant [petitioner] Mendoza is entitled to
her broker's commission. 3
Respondent court placed petitioner to task on their assignment of errors and concluded that not
any of them justifies a reversal of the trial court decision.
We agree.
In the case of Ang Yu Asuncion v. Court of Appeals, 4 we held that:
. . . [A] contract (Art. 1157, Civil Code), . . . is a meeting of minds between two
persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or
to render some service. . . . A contract undergoes various stages that include its
negotiation or preparation, its perfection and, finally, its consummation. Negotiation
covers the period from the time the prospective contracting parties indicate interest
in the contract to the time the contract is concluded . . . . The perfection of the
contract takes place upon the concurrence of the essential elements thereof.
Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that before contract of sale can be valid, the following
elements must be present, viz: (a) consent or meeting of the minds; (b) determinate subject
matter; (3) price certain in money or its equivalent. Until the contract of sale is perfected, it
cannot, as an independent source of obligation, serve as a binding juridical relation between the
parties.
In the case at bench, petitioner, anchors its main argument on the annotation on its third letteroffer of the phrase "Received original, 9-4-89," beside which appears the signature of Conrado
Quesada. It also contends that the said annotation is evidence to show that there was already a
perfected agreement to sell as respondent can be said to have accepted petitioner's payment in
the form of a check which was enclosed in the third letter.
However, as correctly elucidated by the Court of Appeals:
Sy insisted in his testimony that this offer of P12M was accepted by Conrado
Quesada but there is nothing written or documentary to show that such offer was
saying that the check was given thru his [co-petitioner] Mendoza. Examining the
third written offer, it appears that when it was first typewritten, this P11M was noted
to have been corrected, and that as per his testimony, Sy had increased it to P12M.
This is the reason according to Sy why there was a superimposition of the number
"12" over the number "11" to mean P12M as the revised consideration for the sale
of the property in question. 6
Respondent court thus concluded that:
. . . [since] the matter of evaluation of the credibility of witness[es] is addressed to
the trial court and unless clearly contrary to the records before Us, the findings of
the said court are entitled to great respondent on appeal, . . . it was Joseph Sy's idea
to offer the earnest money, and the evidence to show that Joseph Sy accepted the
same, is wanting. . . . 7
and accordingly affirmed the trial court judgment appealed from.
As shown elucidated above, we agree with the findings and conclusions of the trial court and the
respondent court. Neither has petitioner posited any new issues in the instant petition that
warrant the further exercise by this court of its review powers.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this petition is DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 As quoted in the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 28, 1996, pp. 3-4, Rollo, pp. 9-10.
2 Appeal was docketed as CA-G.R CV No. 47515 and raffled to the Eleventh Division with
members: Associate Justices Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, Ramon U. Mabutas, Jr. and Salvador J.
Valdez, Jr.
3 Decision of the Court of Appeals, supra, p. 4, Rollo. p. 10.
4 238 SCRA 602 (1994).
5 Rollo, p. 55.
6 Id., p. 7, Rollo, p. 13.
7 Id., p. 9, Rollo, p. 15.
and private respondent with regard to the sale of the realty. Hence, the alleged
transaction is unenforceable as the requirements under the Statute of Frauds have not
been complied with. Under the said provision, an agreement for the sale of real property
or of an interest therein, to be enforceable, must be in writing and subscribed by the
party charged or by an agent thereof. Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that before
contract of sale can be valid, the following elements must be present, viz: (a) consent or
meeting of the minds; (b) determinate subject matter; (3) price certain in money or its
equivalent. Until the contract of sale is perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of
obligation, serve as a binding juridical relation between the parties.