Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 118114December 7, 1995

TEODORO ACAP, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and EDY DE LOS REYES, respondents.PADILLA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, in CA-G.R. No. 36177, which affirmed the decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental holding that private respondent Edy de los Reyes had acquired ownership of Lot No. 1130 of the Cadastral Survey of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental based on a document entitled "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights", and ordering the dispossession of petitioner as leasehold tenant of the land for failure to pay rentals.

The facts of the case are as follows:

The title to Lot No. 1130 of the Cadastral Survey of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental was evidenced by OCT No. R-12179. The lot has an area of 13,720 sq. meters. The title was issued and is registered in the name of spouses Santiago Vasquez and Lorenza Oruma. After both spouses died, their only son Felixberto inherited the lot. In 1975, Felixberto executed a duly notarized document entitled "Declaration of Heirship and Deed of Absolute Sale" in favor of Cosme Pido.

The evidence before the court a quo established that since 1960, petitioner Teodoro Acap had been the tenant of a portion of the said land, covering an area of nine thousand five hundred (9,500) meters. When ownership was transferred in 1975 by Felixberto to Cosme Pido, Acap continued to be the registered tenant thereof and religiously paid his leasehold rentals to Pido and thereafter, upon Pido's death, to his widow Laurenciana.

The controversy began when Pido died intestate and on 27 November 1981, his surviving heirs executed a notarized document denominated as "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights of Lot No. 1130 Hinigaran Cadastre," wherein they declared; to quote its pertinent portions, that:

. . . Cosme Pido died in the Municipality of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, he died intestate and without any known debts and obligations which the said parcel of land is (sic) held liable.

That Cosme Pido was survived by his/her legitimate heirs, namely: LAURENCIANA PIDO, wife, ELY, ERVIN, ELMER, and ELECHOR all surnamed PIDO; children;

That invoking the provision of Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, the above-mentioned heirs do hereby declare unto [sic] ourselves the only heirs of the late Cosme Pido and that we hereby adjudicate unto ourselves the above-mentioned parcel of land in equal shares.

Now, therefore, We LAURENCIANA 3, ELY, ELMER, ERVIN and ELECHOR all surnamed PIDO, do hereby waive, quitclaim all our rights, interests and participation over the said parcel of land in favor of EDY DE LOS REYES, of legal age, (f)ilipino, married to VIRGINIA DE LOS REYES, and resident of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, Philippines. . . . 4 (Emphasis supplied)

The document was signed by all of Pido's heirs. Private respondent Edy de los Reyes did not sign said document.

It will be noted that at the time of Cosme Pido's death, title to the property continued to be registered in the name of the Vasquez spouses. Upon obtaining the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of Rights in his favor, private respondent Edy de los Reyes filed the same with the Registry of Deeds as part of a notice of an adverse claim against the original certificate of title.

Thereafter, private respondent sought for petitioner (Acap) to personally inform him that he (Edy) had become the new owner of the land and that the lease rentals thereon should be paid to him. Private respondent further alleged that he and petitioner entered into an oral lease agreement wherein petitioner agreed to pay ten (10) cavans of palay per annum as lease rental. In 1982, petitioner allegedly complied with said obligation. In 1983, however, petitioner refused to pay any further lease rentals on the land, prompting private respondent to seek the assistance of the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The MAR invited petitioner to a conference scheduled on 13 October 1983. Petitioner did not attend the conference but sent his wife instead to the conference. During the meeting, an officer of the Ministry informed Acap's wife about private respondent's ownership of the said land but she stated that she and her husband (Teodoro) did not recognize private respondent's claim of ownership over the land.

On 28 April 1988, after the lapse of four (4) years, private respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner, alleging in the main that as his leasehold tenant, petitioner refused and failed to pay the agreed annual rental of ten (10) cavans of palay despite repeated demands.

During the trial before the court a quo, petitioner reiterated his refusal to recognize private respondent's ownership over the subject land. He averred that he continues to recognize Cosme Pido as the owner of the said land, and having been a registered tenant therein since 1960, he never reneged on his rental obligations. When Pido died, he continued to pay rentals to Pido's widow. When the latter left for abroad, she instructed him to stay in the landholding and to pay the accumulated rentals upon her demand or return from abroad.

Petitioner further claimed before the trial court that he had no knowledge about any transfer or sale of the lot to private respondent in 1981 and even the following year after Laurenciana's departure for abroad. He denied having entered into a verbal lease tenancy contract with private respondent and that assuming that the said lot was indeed sold to private respondent without his knowledge, R.A. 3844, as amended, grants him the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price. Petitioner also bewailed private respondent's ejectment action as a violation of his right to security of tenure under P.D. 27.

On 20 August 1991, the lower court rendered a decision in favor of private respondent, the dispositive part of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Edy de los Reyes, and against the defendant, Teodoro Acap, ordering the following, to wit:

1.Declaring forfeiture of defendant's preferred right to issuance of a Certificate of Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and his farmholdings;

2.Ordering the defendant Teodoro Acap to deliver possession of said farm to plaintiff, and;

3.Ordering the defendant to pay P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, the sum of P1,000.00 as expenses of litigation and the amount of P10,000.00 as actual damages. 5

In arriving at the above-mentioned judgment, the trial court stated that the evidence had established that the subject land was "sold" by the heirs of Cosme Pido to private respondent. This is clear from the following disquisitions contained in the trial court's six (6) page decision:

There is no doubt that defendant is a registered tenant of Cosme Pido. However, when the latter died their tenancy relations changed since ownership of said land was passed on to his heirs who, by executing a Deed of Sale, which defendant admitted in his affidavit, likewise passed on their ownership of Lot 1130 to herein plaintiff (private respondent). As owner hereof, plaintiff has the right to demand payment of rental and the tenant is obligated to pay rentals due from the time demand is made. . . . 6

xxxxxxxxx

Certainly, the sale of the Pido family of Lot 1130 to herein plaintiff does not of itself extinguish the relationship. There was only a change of the personality of the lessor in the person of herein plaintiff Edy de los Reyes who being the purchaser or transferee, assumes the rights and obligations of the former landowner to the tenant Teodoro Acap, herein defendant. 7

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, imputing error to the lower court when it ruled that private respondent acquired ownership of Lot No. 1130 and that he, as tenant, should pay rentals to private respondent and that failing to pay the same from 1983 to 1987, his right to a certificate of land transfer under P.D. 27 was deemed forfeited.

The Court of Appeals brushed aside petitioner's argument that the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights (Exhibit "D"), the document relied upon by private respondent to prove his ownership to the lot, was excluded by the lower court in its order dated 27 August 1990. The order indeed noted that the document was not identified by Cosme Pido's heirs and was not registered with the Registry of Deeds of Negros Occidental. According to respondent court, however, since the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights appears to have been duly notarized, no further proof of its due execution was necessary. Like the trial court, respondent court was also convinced that the said document stands as prima facie proof of appellee's (private respondent's) ownership of the land in dispute.

With respect to its non-registration, respondent court noted that petitioner had actual knowledge of the subject sale of the land in dispute to private respondent because as early as 1983, he (petitioner) already knew of private respondent's claim over the said land but which he thereafter denied, and that in 1982, he (petitioner) actually paid rent to private respondent. Otherwise stated, respondent court considered this fact of rental payment in 1982 as estoppel on petitioner's part to thereafter refute private respondent's claim of ownership over the said land. Under these circumstances, respondent court ruled that indeed there was deliberate refusal by petitioner to pay rent for a continued period of five years that merited forfeiture of his otherwise preferred right to the issuance of a certificate of land transfer.

In the present petition, petitioner impugns the decision of the Court of Appeals as not in accord with the law and evidence when it rules that private respondent acquired ownership of Lot No. 1130 through the aforementioned Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights.

Hence, the issues to be resolved presently are the following:

1.WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT DECLARATION OF HEIRSHIP AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS IS A RECOGNIZED MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT OVER THE LOT IN QUESTION.

2.WHETHER OR NOT THE SAID DOCUMENT CAN BE CONSIDERED A DEED OF SALE IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT OF THE LOT IN QUESTION.

Petitioner argues that the Regional Trial Court, in its order dated 7 August 1990, explicitly excluded the document marked as Exhibit "D" (Declaration of Heirship, etc.) as private respondent's evidence because it was not registered with the Registry of Deeds and was not identified by anyone of the heirs of Cosme Pido. The Court of Appeals, however, held the same to be admissible, it being a notarized document, hence, a prima facie proof of private respondents' ownership of the lot to which it refers.

Petitioner points out that the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights is not one of the recognized modes of acquiring ownership under Article 712 of the Civil Code. Neither can the same be considered a deed of sale so as to transfer ownership of the land to private respondent because no consideration is stated in the contract (assuming it is a contract or deed of sale).

Private respondent defends the decision of respondent Court of Appeals as in accord with the evidence and the law. He posits that while it may indeed be true that the trial court excluded his Exhibit "D" which is the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights as part of his evidence, the trial court declared him nonetheless owner of the subject lot based on other evidence adduced during the trial, namely, the notice of adverse claim (Exhibit "E") duly registered by him with the Registry of Deeds, which contains the questioned Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights as an integral part thereof.

We find the petition impressed with merit.

In the first place, an asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over a thing arising from a juridical act, however justified, is not per se sufficient to give rise to ownership over the res. That right or title must be completed by fulfilling certain conditions imposed by law. Hence, ownership and real rights are acquired only pursuant to a legal mode or process. While title is the juridical justification, mode is the actual process of acquisition or transfer of ownership over a thing in question. 8

Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership are generally classified into two (2) classes, namely, the original mode (i.e., through occupation, acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation) and the derivative mode (i.e., through succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as sale, barter, donation, assignment or mutuum).

In the case at bench, the trial court was obviously confused as to the nature and effect of the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights, equating the same with a contract (deed) of sale. They are not the same.

In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other party to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent. 9

Upon the other hand, a declaration of heirship and waiver of rights operates as a public instrument when filed with the Registry of Deeds whereby the intestate heirs adjudicate and divide the estate left by the decedent among themselves as they see fit. It is in effect an extrajudicial settlement between the heirs under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. 10

Hence, there is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditary rights. The first presumes the existence of a contract or deed of sale between the parties. 11 The second is, technically speaking, a mode of extinction of ownership where there is an abdication or intentional relinquishment of a known right with knowledge of its existence and intention to relinquish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the succession. 12 Private respondent, being then a stranger to the succession of Cosme Pido, cannot conclusively claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver document which neither recites the elements of either a sale, 13 or a donation, 14 or any other derivative mode of acquiring ownership.

Quite surprisingly, both the trial court and public respondent Court of Appeals concluded that a "sale" transpired between Cosme Pido's heirs and private respondent and that petitioner acquired actual knowledge of said sale when he was summoned by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform to discuss private respondent's claim over the lot in question. This conclusion has no basis both in fact and in law.

On record, Exhibit "D", which is the "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights" was excluded by the trial court in its order dated 27 August 1990 because the document was neither registered with the Registry of Deeds nor identified by the heirs of Cosme Pido. There is no showing that private respondent had the same document attached to or made part of the record. What the trial court admitted was Annex "E", a notice of adverse claim filed with the Registry of Deeds which contained the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of rights and was annotated at the back of the Original Certificate of Title to the land in question.

A notice of adverse claim, by its nature, does not however prove private respondent's ownership over the tenanted lot. "A notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice of a claim adverse to the registered owner, the validity of which is yet to be established in court at some future date, and is no better than a notice of lis pendens which is a notice of a case already pending in court." 15

It is to be noted that while the existence of said adverse claim was duly proven, there is no evidence whatsoever that a deed of sale was executed between Cosme Pido's heirs and private respondent transferring the rights of Pido's heirs to the land in favor of private respondent. Private respondent's right or interest therefore in the tenanted lot remains an adverse claim which cannot by itself be sufficient to cancel the OCT to the land and title the same in private respondent's name.

Consequently, while the transaction between Pido's heirs and private respondent may be binding on both parties, the right of petitioner as a registered tenant to the land cannot be perfunctorily forfeited on a mere allegation of private respondent's ownership without the corresponding proof thereof.

Petitioner had been a registered tenant in the subject land since 1960 and religiously paid lease rentals thereon. In his mind, he continued to be the registered tenant of Cosme Pido and his family (after Pido's death), even if in 1982, private respondent allegedly informed petitioner that he had become the new owner of the land.

Under the circumstances, petitioner may have, in good faith, assumed such statement of private respondent to be true and may have in fact delivered 10 cavans of palay as annual rental for 1982 to private respondent. But in 1983, it is clear that petitioner had misgivings over private respondent's claim of ownership over the said land because in the October 1983 MAR conference, his wife Laurenciana categorically denied all of private respondent's allegations. In fact, petitioner even secured a certificate from the MAR dated 9 May 1988 to the effect that he continued to be the registered tenant of Cosme Pido and not of private respondent. The reason is that private respondent never registered the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of Rights with the Registry of Deeds or with the MAR. Instead, he (private respondent) sought to do indirectly what could not be done directly, i.e., file a notice of adverse claim on the said lot to establish ownership thereover.

It stands to reason, therefore, to hold that there was no unjustified or deliberate refusal by petitioner to pay the lease rentals or amortizations to the landowner/agricultural lessor which, in this case, private respondent failed to establish in his favor by clear and convincing evidence. 16

Consequently, the sanction of forfeiture of his preferred right to be issued a Certificate of Land Transfer under P.D. 27 and to the possession of his farmholdings should not be applied against petitioners, since private respondent has not established a cause of action for recovery of possession against petitioner.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 1 May 1994 which affirmed the decision of the RTC of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental dated 20 August 1991 is hereby SET ASIDE. The private respondent's complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner Acap is hereby DISMISSED for failure to properly state a cause of action, without prejudice to private respondent taking the proper legal steps to establish the legal mode by which he claims to have acquired ownership of the land in question.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-116650May 23, 1995

TOYOTA SHAW, INC., petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and LUNA L. SOSA, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

At the heart of the present controversy is the document marked Exhibit "A" 1 for the private respondent, which was signed by a sales representative of Toyota Shaw, Inc. named Popong Bernardo. The document reads as follows:

4 June 1989

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MR. SOSA& POPONG BERNARDO OF TOYOTASHAW, INC.

1.all necessary documents will be submitted to TOYOTA SHAW, INC. (POPONG BERNARDO) a week after, upon arrival of Mr. Sosa from the Province (Marinduque) where the unit will be used on the 19th of June.

2.the downpayment of P100,000.00 will be paid by Mr. Sosa on June 15, 1989.

3.the TOYOTA SHAW, INC. LITE ACE yellow, will be pick-up [sic] and released by TOYOTA SHAW, INC. on the 17th of June at 10 a.m.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) POPONG BERNARDO.

Was this document, executed and signed by the petitioner's sales representative, a perfected contract of sale, binding upon the petitioner, breach of which would entitle the private respondent to damages and attorney's fees? The trial court and the Court of Appeals took the affirmative view. The petitioner disagrees. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

The antecedents as disclosed in the decisions of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, as well as in the pleadings of petitioner Toyota Shaw, Inc. (hereinafter Toyota) and respondent Luna L. Sosa (hereinafter Sosa) are as follows. Sometime in June of 1989, Luna L. Sosa wanted to purchase a Toyota Lite Ace. It was then a seller's market and Sosa had difficulty finding a dealer with an available unit for sale. But upon contacting Toyota Shaw, Inc., he was told that there was an available unit. So on 14 June 1989, Sosa and his son, Gilbert, went to the Toyota office at Shaw Boulevard, Pasig, Metro Manila. There they met Popong Bernardo, a sales representative of Toyota.

Sosa emphasized to Bernardo that he needed the Lite Ace not later than 17 June 1989 because he, his family, and a balikbayan guest would use it on 18 June 1989 to go to Marinduque, his home province, where he would celebrate his birthday on the 19th of June. He added that if he does not arrive in his hometown with the new car, he would become a "laughing stock." Bernardo assured Sosa that a unit would be ready for pick up at 10:00 a.m. on 17 June 1989. Bernardo then signed the aforequoted "Agreements Between Mr. Sosa & Popong Bernardo of Toyota Shaw, Inc." It was also agreed upon by the parties that the balance of the purchase price would be paid by credit financing through B.A. Finance, and for this Gilbert, on behalf of his father, signed the documents of Toyota and B.A. Finance pertaining to the application for financing.

The next day, 15 June 1989, Sosa and Gilbert went to Toyota to deliver the downpayment of P100,000.00. They met Bernardo who then accomplished a printed Vehicle Sales Proposal (VSP) No. 928, 2 on which Gilbert signed under the subheading CONFORME. This document shows that the customer's name is "MR. LUNA SOSA" with home address at No. 2316 Guijo Street, United Paraaque II; that the model series of the vehicle is a "Lite Ace 1500" described as "4 Dr minibus"; that payment is by "installment," to be financed by "B.A.," 3 with the initial cash outlay of P100,000.00 broken down as follows:

a)downpaymentP 53,148.00

b)insuranceP 13,970.00

c)BLT registration feeP 1,067.00

CHMO feeP 2,715.00

service feeP 500.00

accessoriesP 29,000.00

and that the "BALANCE TO BE FINANCED" is "P274,137.00." The spaces provided for "Delivery Terms" were not filled-up. It also contains the following pertinent provisions:

CONDITIONS OF SALES

1.This sale is subject to availability of unit.

2.Stated Price is subject to change without prior notice, Price prevailing and in effect at time of selling will apply. . . .

Rodrigo Quirante, the Sales Supervisor of Bernardo, checked and approved the VSP.

On 17 June 1989, at around 9:30 a.m., Bernardo called Gilbert to inform him that the vehicle would not be ready for pick up at 10:00 a.m. as previously agreed upon but at 2:00 p.m. that same day. At 2:00 p.m., Sosa and Gilbert met Bernardo at the latter's office. According to Sosa, Bernardo informed them that the Lite Ace was being readied for delivery. After waiting for about an hour, Bernardo told them that the car could not be delivered because "nasulot ang unit ng ibang malakas."

Toyota contends, however, that the Lite Ace was not delivered to Sosa because of the disapproval by B.A. Finance of the credit financing application of Sosa. It further alleged that a particular unit had already been reserved and earmarked for Sosa but could not be released due to the uncertainty of payment of the balance of the purchase price. Toyota then gave Sosa the option to purchase the unit by paying the full purchase price in cash but Sosa refused.

After it became clear that the Lite Ace would not be delivered to him, Sosa asked that his downpayment be refunded. Toyota did so on the very same day by issuing a Far East Bank check for the full amount of P100,000.00, 4 the receipt of which was shown by a check voucher of Toyota, 5 which Sosa signed with the reservation, "without prejudice to our future claims for damages."

Thereafter, Sosa sent two letters to Toyota. In the first letter, dated 27 June 1989 and signed by him, he demanded the refund, within five days from receipt, of the downpayment of P100,000.00 plus interest from the time he paid it and the payment of damages with a warning that in case of Toyota's failure to do so he would be constrained to take legal action. 6 The second, dated 4 November 1989 and signed by M. O. Caballes, Sosa's counsel, demanded one million pesos representing interest and damages, again, with a warning that legal action would be taken if payment was not made within three days. 7 Toyota's counsel answered through a letter dated 27 November 1989 8 refusing to accede to the demands of Sosa. But even before this answer was made and received by Sosa, the latter filed on 20 November 1989 with Branch 38 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marinduque a complaint against Toyota for damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code in the total amount of P1,230,000.00. 9 He alleges, inter alia, that:

9.As a result of defendant's failure and/or refusal to deliver the vehicle to plaintiff, plaintiff suffered embarrassment, humiliation, ridicule, mental anguish and sleepless nights because: (i) he and his family were constrained to take the public transportation from Manila to Lucena City on their way to Marinduque; (ii) his balikbayan-guest canceled his scheduled first visit to Marinduque in order to avoid the inconvenience of taking public transportation; and (iii) his relatives, friends, neighbors and other provincemates, continuously irked him about "his Brand-New Toyota Lite Ace that never was." Under the circumstances, defendant should be made liable to the plaintiff for moral damages in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). 10

In its answer to the complaint, Toyota alleged that no sale was entered into between it and Sosa, that Bernardo had no authority to sign Exhibit "A" for and in its behalf, and that Bernardo signed Exhibit "A" in his personal capacity. As special and affirmative defenses, it alleged that: the VSP did not state date of delivery; Sosa had not completed the documents required by the financing company, and as a matter of policy, the vehicle could not and would not be released prior to full compliance with financing requirements, submission of all documents, and execution of the sales agreement/invoice; the P100,000.00 was returned to and received by Sosa; the venue was improperly laid; and Sosa did not have a sufficient cause of action against it. It also interposed compulsory counterclaims.

After trial on the issues agreed upon during the pre-trial session, 11 the trial court rendered on 18 February 1992 a decision in favor of Sosa. 12 It ruled that Exhibit "A," the "AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MR. SOSA AND POPONG BERNARDO," was a valid perfected contract of sale between Sosa and Toyota which bound Toyota to deliver the vehicle to Sosa, and further agreed with Sosa that Toyota acted in bad faith in selling to another the unit already reserved for him.

As to Toyota's contention that Bernardo had no authority to bind it through Exhibit "A," the trial court held that the extent of Bernardo's authority "was not made known to plaintiff," for as testified to by Quirante, "they do not volunteer any information as to the company's sales policy and guidelines because they are internal matters." 13 Moreover, "[f]rom the beginning of the transaction up to its consummation when the downpayment was made by the plaintiff, the defendants had made known to the plaintiff the impression that Popong Bernardo is an authorized sales executive as it permitted the latter to do acts within the scope of an apparent authority holding him out to the public as possessing power to do these acts." 14 Bernardo then "was an agent of the defendant Toyota Shaw, Inc. and hence bound the defendants." 15

The court further declared that "Luna Sosa proved his social standing in the community and suffered besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and sleepless nights for which he ought to be compensated." 16 Accordingly, it disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, viewed from the above findings, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant:

1.ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P75,000.00 for moral damages;

2.ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 for exemplary damages;

3.ordering the defendant to pay the sum of P30,000.00 attorney's fees plus P2,000.00 lawyer's transportation fare per trip in attending to the hearing of this case;

4.ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P2,000.00 transportation fare per trip of the plaintiff in attending the hearing of this case; and

5.ordering the defendant to pay the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.

Dissatisfied with the trial court's judgment, Toyota appealed to the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 40043. In its decision promulgated on 29 July 1994, 17 the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the appealed decision.

Toyota now comes before this Court via this petition and raises the core issue stated at the beginning of the ponencia and also the following related issues: (a) whether or not the standard VSP was the true and documented understanding of the parties which would have led to the ultimate contract of sale, (b) whether or not Sosa has any legal and demandable right to the delivery of the vehicle despite the non-payment of the consideration and the non-approval of his credit application by B.A. Finance, (c) whether or not Toyota acted in good faith when it did not release the vehicle to Sosa, and (d) whether or not Toyota may be held liable for damages.

We find merit in the petition.

Neither logic nor recourse to one's imagination can lead to the conclusion that Exhibit "A" is a perfected contract of sale.

Article 1458 of the Civil Code defines a contract of sale as follows:

Art. 1458.By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.

A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.

and Article 1475 specifically provides when it is deemed perfected:

Art. 1475.The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price.

From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts.

What is clear from Exhibit "A" is not what the trial court and the Court of Appeals appear to see. It is not a contract of sale. No obligation on the part of Toyota to transfer ownership of a determinate thing to Sosa and no correlative obligation on the part of the latter to pay therefor a price certain appears therein. The provision on the downpayment of P100,000.00 made no specific reference to a sale of a vehicle. If it was intended for a contract of sale, it could only refer to a sale on installment basis, as the VSP executed the following day confirmed. But nothing was mentioned about the full purchase price and the manner the installments were to be paid.

This Court had already ruled that a definite agreement on the manner of payment of the price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. 18 This is so because the agreement as to the manner of payment goes into the price such that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price. Definiteness as to the price is an essential element of a binding agreement to sell personal property. 19

Moreover, Exhibit "A" shows the absence of a meeting of minds between Toyota and Sosa. For one thing, Sosa did not even sign it. For another, Sosa was well aware from its title, written in bold letters, viz.,

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MR. SOSA & POPONG BERNARDO OF TOYOTA SHAW, INC.

that he was not dealing with Toyota but with Popong Bernardo and that the latter did not misrepresent that he had the authority to sell any Toyota vehicle. He knew that Bernardo was only a sales representative of Toyota and hence a mere agent of the latter. It was incumbent upon Sosa to act with ordinary prudence and reasonable diligence to know the extent of Bernardo's authority as anagent 20 in respect of contracts to sell Toyota's vehicles. A person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. 21

At the most, Exhibit "A" may be considered as part of the initial phase of the generation or negotiation stage of a contract of sale. There are three stages in the contract of sale, namely:

(a)preparation, conception, or generation, which is the period of negotiation and bargaining, ending at the moment of agreement of the parties;

(b)perfection or birth of the contract, which is the moment when the parties come to agree on the terms of the contract; and

(c)consummation or death, which is the fulfillment or performance of the terms agreed upon in the contract. 22

The second phase of the generation or negotiation stage in this case was the execution of the VSP. It must be emphasized that thereunder, the downpayment of the purchase price was P53,148.00 while the balance to be paid on installment should be financed by B.A. Finance Corporation. It is, of course, to be assumed that B.A. Finance Corp. was acceptable to Toyota, otherwise it should not have mentioned B.A. Finance in the VSP.

Financing companies are defined in Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 5980, as amended by P.D. No. 1454 and P.D. No. 1793, as "corporations or partnerships, except those regulated by the Central Bank of the Philippines, the Insurance Commission and the Cooperatives Administration Office, which are primarily organized for the purpose of extending credit facilities to consumers and to industrial, commercial, or agricultural enterprises, either by discounting or factoring commercial papers or accounts receivables, or by buying and selling contracts, leases, chattel mortgages, or other evidence of indebtedness, or by leasing of motor vehicles, heavy equipment and industrial machinery, business and office machines and equipment, appliances and other movable property." 23

Accordingly, in a sale on installment basis which is financed by a financing company, three parties are thus involved: the buyer who executes a note or notes for the unpaid balance of the price of the thing purchased on installment, the seller who assigns the notes or discounts them with a financing company, and the financing company which is subrogated in the place of the seller, as the creditor of the installment buyer. 24 Since B.A. Finance did not approve Sosa's application, there was then no meeting of minds on the sale on installment basis.

We are inclined to believe Toyota's version that B.A. Finance disapproved Sosa's application for which reason it suggested to Sosa that he pay the full purchase price. When the latter refused, Toyota cancelled the VSP and returned to him his P100,000.00. Sosa's version that the VSP was cancelled because, according to Bernardo, the vehicle was delivered to another who was "mas malakas" does not inspire belief and was obviously a delayed afterthought. It is claimed that Bernardo said, "Pasensiya kayo, nasulot ang unit ng ibang malakas," while the Sosas had already been waiting for an hour for the delivery of the vehicle in the afternoon of 17 June 1989. However, in paragraph 7 of his complaint, Sosa solemnly states:

On June 17, 1989 at around 9:30 o'clock in the morning, defendant's sales representative, Mr. Popong Bernardo, called plaintiff's house and informed the plaintiff's son that the vehicle will not be ready for pick-up at 10:00 a.m. of June 17, 1989 but at 2:00 p.m. of that day instead. Plaintiff and his son went to defendant's office on June 17 1989 at 2:00 p.m. in order to pick-up the vehicle but the defendant for reasons known only to its representatives, refused and/or failed to release the vehicle to the plaintiff. Plaintiff demanded for an explanation, but nothing was given; . . . (Emphasis supplied). 25

The VSP was a mere proposal which was aborted in lieu of subsequent events. It follows that the VSP created no demandable right in favor of Sosa for the delivery of the vehicle to him, and its non-delivery did not cause any legally indemnifiable injury.

The award then of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees and costs of suit is without legal basis. Besides, the only ground upon which Sosa claimed moral damages is that since it was known to his friends, townmates, and relatives that he was buying a Toyota Lite Ace which they expected to see on his birthday, he suffered humiliation, shame, and sleepless nights when the van was not delivered. The van became the subject matter of talks during his celebration that he may not have paid for it, and this created an impression against his business standing and reputation. At the bottom of this claim is nothing but misplaced pride and ego. He should not have announced his plan to buy a Toyota Lite Ace knowing that he might not be able to pay the full purchase price. It was he who brought embarrassment upon himself by bragging about a thing which he did not own yet.

Since Sosa is not entitled to moral damages and there being no award for temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages, he is likewise not entitled to exemplary damages. Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages.

Also, it is settled that for attorney's fees to be granted, the court must explicitly state in the body of the decision, and not only in the dispositive portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of attorney's fees. 26 No such explicit determination thereon was made in the body of the decision of the trial court. No reason thus exists for such an award.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV NO. 40043 as well as that of Branch 38 of the Regional Trial Court of Marinduque in Civil Case No. 89-14 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the complaint in Civil Case No. 89-14 is DISMISSED. The counterclaim therein is likewise DISMISSED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Quiason, J., is on leave.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 143513. November 14, 2001]

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., respondents.

[G.R. No. 143590. November 14, 2001]

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BELLOSILLO, J.:

A litigation is not simply a contest of litigants before the bar of public opinion; more than that, it is a pursuit of justice through legal and equitable means. To prevent the search for justice from evolving into a competition for public approval, society invests the judiciary with complete independence thereby insulating it from demands expressed through any medium, the press not excluded. Thus, if the court would merely reflect, and worse, succumb to the great pressures of the day, the end result, it is feared, would be a travesty of justice.

In the early sixties, petitioner National Development Corporation (NDC), a government owned and controlled corporation created under CA 182 as amended by CA 311 and PD No. 668, had in its disposal a ten (10)-hectare property located along Pureza St., Sta. Mesa, Manila. The estate was popularly known as the NDC compound and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 92885, 110301 and 145470.

Sometime in May 1965 private respondent Firestone Ceramics Inc. (FIRESTONE) manifested its desire to lease a portion of the property for its ceramic manufacturing business. On 24 August 1965 NDC and FIRESTONE entered into a contract of lease denominated as Contract No. C-30-65 covering a portion of the property measured at 2.90118 hectares for use as a manufacturing plant for a term of ten (10) years, renewable for another ten (10) years under the same terms and conditions.[1] In consequence of the agreement, FIRESTONE constructed on the leased premises several warehouses and other improvements needed for the fabrication of ceramic products.

Three and a half (3-1/2) years later, or on 8 January 1969, FIRESTONE entered into a second contract of lease with NDC over the latter's four (4)-unit pre-fabricated reparation steel warehouse stored in Daliao, Davao. FIRESTONE agreed to ship the warehouse to Manila for eventual assembly within the NDC compound. The second contract, denominated as Contract No. C-26-68, was for similar use as a ceramic manufacturing plant and was agreed expressly to be "co-extensive with the lease of LESSEE with LESSOR on the 2.60 hectare-lot."[2]

On 31 July 1974 the parties signed a similar contract concerning a six (6)-unit pre-fabricated steel warehouse which, as agreed upon by the parties, would expire on 2 December 1978.[3] Prior to the expiration of the aforementioned contract, FIRESTONE wrote NDC requesting for an extension of their lease agreement. Consequently on 29 November 1978 the Board of Directors of NDC adopted Resolution No. 11-78-117 extending the term of the lease, subject to several conditions among which was that in the event NDC "with the approval of higher authorities, decide to dispose and sell these properties including the lot, priority should be given to the LESSEE"[4] (underscoring supplied). On 22 December 1978, in pursuance of the resolution, the parties entered into a new agreement for a ten-year lease of the property, renewable for another ten (10) years, expressly granting FIRESTONE the first option to purchase the leased premises in the event that it decided "to dispose and sell these properties including the lot . . . . "[5]

The contracts of lease conspicuously contain an identically worded provision requiring FIRESTONE to construct buildings and other improvements within the leased premises worth several hundred thousands of pesos.[6]

The parties' lessor-lessee relationship went smoothly until early 1988 when FIRESTONE, cognizant of the impending expiration of their lease agreement with NDC, informed the latter through several letters and telephone calls that it was renewing its lease over the property. While its letter of 17 March 1988 was answered by Antonio A. Henson, General Manager of NDC, who promised immediate action on the matter, the rest of its communications remained unacknowledged.[7] FIRESTONE's predicament worsened when rumors of NDC's supposed plans to dispose of the subject property in favor of petitioner Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) came to its knowledge. Forthwith, FIRESTONE served notice on NDC conveying its desire to purchase the property in the exercise of its contractual right of first refusal.

Apprehensive that its interest in the property would be disregarded, FIRESTONE instituted an action for specific performance to compel NDC to sell the leased property in its favor. FIRESTONE averred that it was pre-empting the impending sale of the NDC compound to petitioner PUP in violation of its leasehold rights over the 2.60-hectare[8] property and the warehouses thereon which would expire in 1999. FIRESTONE likewise prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin NDC from disposing of the property pending the settlement of the controversy.[9]

In support of its complaint, FIRESTONE adduced in evidence a letter of Antonio A. Henson dated 15 July 1988 addressed to Mr. Jake C. Lagonera, Director and Special Assistant to Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraeg, reviewing a proposed memorandum order submitted to then President Corazon C. Aquino transferring the whole NDC compound, including the leased property, in favor of petitioner PUP. Attached to the letter was a draft of the proposed memorandum order as well as a summary of existing leases on the subject property. The survey listed FIRESTONE as lessee of a portion of the property, placed at 29,000[10] square meters, whose contract with NDC was set to expire on 31 December 1989[11] renewable for another ten (10) years at the option of the lessee. The report expressly recognized FIRESTONE's right of first refusal to purchase the leased property "should the lessor decide to sell the same."[12]

Meanwhile, on 21 February 1989 PUP moved to intervene and asserted its interest in the subject property, arguing that a "purchaser pendente lite of property which is subject of a litigation is entitled to intervene in the proceedings."[13] PUP referred to Memorandum Order No. 214 issued by then President Aquino ordering the transfer of the whole NDC compound to the National Government, which in turn would convey the aforementioned property in favor of PUP at acquisition cost. The issuance was supposedly made in recognition of PUP's status as the "Poor Man's University" as well as its serious need to extend its campus in order to accommodate the growing student population. The order of conveyance of the 10.31-hectare property would automatically result in the cancellation of NDC's total obligation in favor of the National Government in the amount of P57,193,201.64.

Convinced that PUP was a necessary party to the controversy that ought to be joined as party defendant in order to avoid multiplicity of suits, the trial court granted PUP's motion to intervene. FIRESTONE moved for reconsideration but was denied. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the trial court. FIRESTONE came to us on review but in a Resolution dated 11 July 1990 we upheld PUP's inclusion as party-defendant in the present controversy.

Following the denial of its petition, FIRESTONE amended its complaint to include PUP and Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraeg, Jr., as party-defendants, and sought the annulment of Memorandum Order No. 214. FIRESTONE alleged that although Memorandum Order No. 214 was issued "subject to such liens/leases existing [on the subject property]," PUP disregarded and violated its existing lease by increasing the rental rate at P200,000.00 a month while demanding that it vacated the premises immediately.[14] FIRESTONE prayed that in the event Memorandum Order No. 214 was not declared unconstitutional, the property should be sold in its favor at the price for which it was sold to PUP - P554.74 per square meter or for a total purchase price of P14,423,240.00.[15]

Petitioner PUP, in its answer to the amended complaint, argued in essence that the lease contract covering the property had expired long before the institution of the complaint, and that further, the right of first refusal invoked by FIRESTONE applied solely to the six-unit pre-fabricated warehouse and not the lot upon which it stood.

After trial on the merits, judgment was rendered declaring the contracts of lease executed between FIRESTONE and NDC covering the 2.60-hectare property and the warehouses constructed thereon valid and existing until 2 June 1999. PUP was ordered and directed to sell to FIRESTONE the "2.6 hectare leased premises or as may be determined by actual verification and survey of the actual size of the leased properties where plaintiff's fire brick factory is located" at P1,500.00 per square meter considering that, as admitted by FIRESTONE, such was the prevailing market price thereof.

The trial court ruled that the contracts of lease executed between FIRESTONE and NDC were interrelated and inseparable because "each of them forms part of the integral system of plaintiff's brick manufacturing plant x x x if one of the leased premises will be taken apart or otherwise detached from the two others, the purpose of the lease as well as plaintiff's business operations would be rendered useless and inoperative."[16] It thus decreed that FIRESTONE could exercise its option to purchase the property until 2 June 1999 inasmuch as the 22 December 1978 contract embodied a covenant to renew the lease for another ten (10) years at the option of the lessee as well as an agreement giving the lessee the right of first refusal.

The trial court also sustained the constitutionality of Memorandum Order No. 214 which was not per se hostile to FIRESTONE's property rights, but deplored as prejudicial thereto the "very manner with which defendants NDC and PUP interpreted and applied the same, ignoring in the process that plaintiff has existing contracts of lease protectable by express provisions in the Memorandum No. 214 itself."[17] It further explained that the questioned memorandum was issued "subject to such liens/leases existing thereon"[18] and petitioner PUP was under express instructions "to enter, occupy and take possession of the transferred property subject to such leases or liens and encumbrances that may be existing thereon"[19] (underscoring supplied).

Petitioners PUP, NDC and the Executive Secretary separately filed their Notice of Appeal, but a few days thereafter, or on 3 September 1996, perhaps realizing the groundlessness and the futility of it all, the Executive Secretary withdrew his appeal.[20]

Subsequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court ordering the sale of the property in favor of FIRESTONE but deleted the award of attorney's fees in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00). Accordingly, FIRESTONE was given a grace period of six (6) months from finality of the court's judgment within which to purchase the property in questioned in the exercise of its right of first refusal. The Court of Appeals observed that as there was a sale of the subject property, NDC could not excuse itself from its obligation TO OFFER THE PROPERTY FOR SALE FIRST TO FIRESTONE BEFORE IT COULD TO OTHER PARTIES. The Court of Appeals held: "NDC cannot look to Memorandum Order No. 214 to excuse or shield it from its contractual obligations to FIRESTONE. There is nothing therein that allows NDC to disavow or repudiate the solemn engagement that it freely and voluntarily undertook, or agreed to undertake."[21]

PUP moved for reconsideration asserting that in ordering the sale of the property in favor of FIRESTONE the courts a quo unfairly created a contract to sell between the parties. It argued that the "court cannot substitute or decree its mind or consent for that of the parties in determining whether or not a contract (has been) perfected between PUP and NDC."[22] PUP further contended that since "a real property located in Sta. Mesa can readily command a sum of P10,000.00 per square (meter)," the lower court gravely erred in ordering the sale of the property at only P1,500.00 per square meter. PUP also advanced the theory that the enactment of Memorandum Order No. 214 amounted to a withdrawal of the option to purchase the property granted to FIRESTONE. NDC, for its part, vigorously contended that the contracts of lease executed between the parties had expired without being renewed by FIRESTONE; consequently, FIRESTONE was no longer entitled to any preferential right in the sale or disposition of the leased property.

We do not see it the way PUP and NDC did. It is elementary that a party to a contract cannot unilaterally withdraw a right of first refusal that stands upon valuable consideration. That principle was clearly upheld by the Court of Appeals when it denied on 6 June 2000 the twin motions for reconsideration filed by PUP and NDC on the ground that the appellants failed to advance new arguments substantial enough to warrant a reversal of the Decision sought to be reconsidered.[23] On 28 June 2000 PUP filed an urgent motion for an additional period of fifteen (15) days from 29 June 2000 or until 14 July 2000 within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals.

On the last day of the extended period PUP filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals of 6 December 1999 as well as the Resolution of 6 June 2000 denying reconsideration thereof. PUP raised two issues: (a) whether the courts a quo erred when they "conjectured" that the transfer of the leased property from NDC to PUP amounted to a sale; and, (b) whether FIRESTONE can rightfully invoke its right of first refusal. Petitioner posited that if we were to place our imprimatur on the decisions of the courts a quo, "public welfare or specifically the constitutional priority accorded to education" would greatly be prejudiced.[24]

Paradoxically, our paramount interest in education does not license us, or any party for that matter, to destroy the sanctity of binding obligations. Education may be prioritized for legislative or budgetary purposes, but we doubt if such importance can be used to confiscate private property such as FIRESTONE's right of first refusal.

On 17 July 2000 we denied PUP's motion for extension of fifteen (15) days within which to appeal inasmuch as the aforesaid pleading lacked an affidavit of service of copies thereof on the Court of Appeals and the adverse party, as well as written explanation for not filing and serving the pleading personally.[25]

Accordingly, on 26 July 2000 we issued a Resolution dismissing PUP's Petition for Review for having been filed out of time. PUP moved for reconsideration imploring a resolution or decision on the merits of its petition. Strangely, about the same time, several articles came out in the newspapers assailing the denial of the petition. The daily papers reported that we unreasonably dismissed PUP's petition on technical grounds, affirming in the process the decision of the trial court to sell the disputed property to the prejudice of the government in the amount of P1,000,000,000.00.[26] Counsel for petitioner PUP, alleged that the trial court and the Court of Appeals "have decided a question of substance in a way definitely not in accord with law or jurisprudence."[27]

At the outset, let it be noted that the amount of P1,000,000,000.00 as reported in the papers was way too exaggerated, if not fantastic. We stress that NDC itself sold the whole 10.31-hectare property to PUP at only P57,193,201.64 which represents NDC's obligation to the national government that was, in exchange, written off. The price offered per square meter of the property was pegged at P554.74. FIRESTONE's leased premises would therefore be worth only P14,423,240.00. From any angle, this amount is certainly far below the ballyhooed price of P1,000,000,000.00.

On 4 October 2000 we granted PUP's Motion for Reconsideration to give it a chance to ventilate its right, if any it still had in the leased premises, thereby paving the way for a reinstatement of its Petition for Review.[28] In its appeal, PUP took to task the courts a quo for supposedly "substituting or decreeing its mind or consent for that of the parties (referring to NDC and PUP) in determining whether or not a contract of sale was perfected." PUP also argued that inasmuch as "it is the parties alone whose minds must meet in reference to the subject matter and cause," it concluded that it was error for the lower courts to have decreed the existence of a sale of the NDC compound thus allowing FIRESTONE to exercise its right of first refusal.

On the other hand, NDC separately filed its own Petition for Review and advanced arguments which, in fine, centered on whether or not the transaction between petitioners NDC and PUP amounted to a sale considering that ownership of the property remained with the government.[29] Petitioner NDC introduced the novel proposition that if the parties involved are both government entities the transaction cannot be legally called a sale.

In due course both petitions were consolidated.[30]

We believe that the courts a quo did not hypothesize, much less conjure, the sale of the disputed property by NDC in favor of petitioner PUP. Aside from the fact that the intention of NDC and PUP to enter into a contract of sale was clearly expressed in the Memorandum Order No. 214,[31] a close perusal of the circumstances of this case strengthens the theory that the conveyance of the property from NDC to PUP was one of absolute sale, for a valuable consideration, and not a mere paper transfer as argued by petitioners.

A contract of sale, as defined in the Civil Code, is a contract where one of the parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing to the other or others who shall pay therefore a sum certain in money or its equivalent.[32] It is therefore a general requisite for the existence of a valid and enforceable contract of sale that it be mutually obligatory, i.e., there should be a concurrence of the promise of the vendor to sell a determinate thing and the promise of the vendee to receive and pay for the property so delivered and transferred. The Civil Code provision is, in effect, a "catch-all" provision which effectively brings within its grasp a whole gamut of transfers whereby ownership of a thing is ceded for a consideration.

Contrary to what petitioners PUP and NDC propose, there is not just one party involved in the questioned transaction. Petitioners NDC and PUP have their respective charters and therefore each possesses a separate and distinct individual personality.[33] The inherent weakness of NDCs proposition that there was no sale as it was only the government which was involved in the transaction thus reveals itself. Tersely put, it is not necessary to write an extended dissertation on government owned and controlled corporations and their legal personalities. Beyond cavil, a government owned and controlled corporation has a personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of the government.[34] The intervention in the transaction of the Office of the President through the Executive Secretary did not change the independent existence of these entities. The involvement of the Office of the President was limited to brokering the consequent relationship between NDC and PUP. But the withdrawal of the appeal by the Executive Secretary is considered significant as he knew, after a review of the records, that the transaction was subject to existing liens and encumbrances, particularly the priority to purchase the leased premises in favor of FIRESTONE.

True that there may be instances when a particular deed does not disclose the real intentions of the parties, but their action may nevertheless indicate that a binding obligation has been undertaken. Since the conduct of the parties to a contract may be sufficient to establish the existence of an agreement and the terms thereof, it becomes necessary for the courts to examine the contemporaneous behavior of the parties in establishing the existence of their contract.

The preponderance of evidence shows that NDC sold to PUP the whole NDC compound, including the leased premises, without the knowledge much less consent of private respondent FIRESTONE which had a valid and existing right of first refusal.

All three (3) essential elements of a valid sale, without which there can be no sale, were attendant in the "disposition" and "transfer" of the property from NDC to PUP - consent of the parties, determinate subject matter, and consideration therefor.

Consent to the sale is obvious from the prefatory clauses of Memorandum Order No. 214 which explicitly states the acquiescence of the parties to the sale of the property -

WHEREAS, PUP has expressed its willingness to acquire said NDC properties and NDC has expressed its willingness to sell the properties to PUP (underscoring supplied).[35]

Furthermore, the cancellation of NDC's liabilities in favor of the National Government in the amount of P57,193,201.64 constituted the "consideration" for the sale. As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals-

The defendants-appellants' interpretation that there was a mere transfer, and not a sale, apart from being specious sophistry and a mere play of words, is too strained and hairsplitting. For it is axiomatic that every sale imposes upon the vendor the obligation to transfer ownership as an essential element of the contract. Transfer of title or an agreement to transfer title for a price paid, or promised to be paid, is the very essence of sale (Kerr & Co. v. Lingad, 38 SCRA 524; Schmid & Oberly, Inc., v. RJL Martinez Fishing Corp., 166 SCRA 493). At whatever legal angle we view it, therefore, the inescapable fact remains that all the requisites of a valid sale were attendant in the transaction between co-defendants-appellants NDC and PUP concerning the realities subject of the present suit.[36]

What is more, the conduct of petitioner PUP immediately after the transaction is in itself an admission that there was a sale of the NDC compound in its favor. Thus, after the issuance of Memorandum Order No. 214 petitioner PUP asserted its ownership over the property by posting notices within the compound advising residents and occupants to vacate the premises.[37] In its Motion for Intervention petitioner PUP also admitted that its interest as a "purchaser pendente lite" would be better protected if it was joined as party-defendant in the controversy thereby confessing that it indeed purchased the property.

In light of the foregoing disquisition, we now proceed to determine whether FIRESTONE should be allowed to exercise its right of first refusal over the property. Such right was expressly stated by NDC and FIRESTONE in par. XV of their third contract denominated as A-10-78 executed on 22 December 1978 which, as found by the courts a quo, was interrelated to and inseparable from their first contract denominated as C-30-65 executed on 24 August 1965 and their second contract denominated as C-26-68 executed on 8 January 1969. Thus -

Should the LESSOR desire to sell the leased premises during the term of this Agreement, or any extension thereof, the LESSOR shall first give to the LESSEE, which shall have the right of first option to purchase the leased premises subject to mutual agreement of both parties.[38]

In the instant case, the right of first refusal is an integral and indivisible part of the contract of lease and is inseparable from the whole contract. The consideration for the right is built into the reciprocal obligations of the parties. Thus, it is not correct for petitioners to insist that there was no consideration paid by FIRESTONE to entitle it to the exercise of the right, inasmuch as the stipulation is part and parcel of the contract of lease making the consideration for the lease the same as that for the option.

It is a settled principle in civil law that when a lease contract contains a right of first refusal, the lessor is under a legal duty to the lessee not to sell to anybody at any price until after he has made an offer to sell to the latter at a certain price and the lessee has failed to accept it.[39] The lessee has a right that the lessor's first offer shall be in his favor.

The option in this case was incorporated in the contracts of lease by NDC for the benefit of FIRESTONE which, in view of the total amount of its investments in the property, wanted to be assured that it would be given the first opportunity to buy the property at a price for which it would be offered. Consistent with their agreement, it was then implicit for NDC to have first offered the leased premises of 2.60 hectares to FIRESTONE prior to the sale in favor of PUP. Only if FIRESTONE failed to exercise its right of first priority could NDC lawfully sell the property to petitioner PUP.

It now becomes apropos to ask whether the courts a quo were correct in fixing the proper consideration of the sale at P1,500.00 per square meter. In contracts of sale, the basis of the right of first refusal must be the current offer of the seller to sell or the offer to purchase of the prospective buyer. Only after the lessee-grantee fails to exercise its right under the same terms and within the period contemplated can the owner validly offer to sell the property to a third person, again, under the same terms as offered to the grantee.[40] It appearing that the whole NDC compound was sold to PUP for P554.74 per square meter, it would have been more proper for the courts below to have ordered the sale of the property also at the same price. However, since FIRESTONE never raised this as an issue, while on the other hand it admitted that the value of the property stood at P1,500.00 per square meter, then we see no compelling reason to modify the holdings of the courts a quo that the leased premises be sold at that price.

Our attention is invited by petitioners to Ang Yu Asuncion v. CA[41] in concluding that if our holding in Ang Yu would be applied to the facts of this case then FIRESTONE's "option, if still subsisting, is not enforceable," the option being merely a preparatory contract which cannot be enforced.

The contention has no merit. At the heels of Ang Yu came Equatorial Realty Development, Inc., v. Mayfair Theater, Inc.,[42] where after much deliberation we declared, and so we hold, that a right of first refusal is neither "amorphous nor merely preparatory" and can be enforced and executed according to its terms. Thus, in Equatorial we ordered the rescission of the sale which was made in violation of the lessee's right of first refusal and further ordered the sale of the leased property in favor of Mayfair Theater, as grantee of the right. Emphatically, we held that "(a right of first priority) should be enforced according to the law on contracts instead of the panoramic and indefinite rule on human relations." We then concluded that the execution of the right of first refusal consists in directing the grantor to comply with his obligation according to the terms at which he should have offered the property in favor of the grantee and at that price when the offer should have been made.

One final word. Petitioner PUP should be cautioned against bidding for public sympathy by bewailing the dismissal of its petition before the press. Such advocacy is not likely to elicit the compassion of this Court or of any court for that matter. An entreaty for a favorable disposition of a case not made directly through pleadings and oral arguments before the courts do not persuade us, for as judges, we are ruled only by our forsworn duty to give justice where justice is due.

WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. No. 143513 and G.R. No. 143590 are DENIED. Inasmuch as the first contract of lease fixed the area of the leased premises at 2.90118 hectares while the second contract placed it at 2.60 hectares, let a ground survey of the leased premises be immediately conducted by a duly licensed, registered surveyor at the expense of private respondent FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., within two (2) months from finality of the judgment in this case. Thereafter, private respondent FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., shall have six (6) months from receipt of the approved survey within which to exercise its right to purchase the leased property at P1,500.00 per square meter, and petitioner Polytechnic University of the Philippines is ordered to reconvey the property to FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., in the exercise of its right of first refusal upon payment of the purchase price thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.Quisumbing, J., no part due to prior close relations.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 166862 December 20, 2006

MANILA METAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, petitioner, REYNALDO C. TOLENTINO, intervenor, vs.PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondent,DMCI-PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC., intervenor.

D E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. 46153 which affirmed the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 71, Pasig City, in Civil Case No. 58551, and its Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Manila Metal Container Corporation (MMCC).

The Antecedents

Petitioner was the owner of a 8,015 square meter parcel of land located in Mandaluyong (now a City), Metro Manila. The property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 332098 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal. To secure a P900,000.00 loan it had obtained from respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB), petitioner executed a real estate mortgage over the lot. Respondent PNB later granted petitioner a new credit accommodation of P1,000,000.00; and, on November 16, 1973, petitioner executed an Amendment4 of Real Estate Mortgage over its property. On March 31, 1981, petitioner secured another loan of P653,000.00 from respondent PNB, payable in quarterly installments of P32,650.00, plus interests and other charges.5

On August 5, 1982, respondent PNB filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage and sought to have the property sold at public auction for P911,532.21, petitioner's outstanding obligation to respondent PNB as of June 30, 1982,6 plus interests and attorney's fees.

After due notice and publication, the property was sold at public auction on September 28, 1982 where respondent PNB was declared the winning bidder for P1,000,000.00. The Certificate of Sale7 issued in its favor was registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, and was annotated at the dorsal portion of the title on February 17, 1983. Thus, the period to redeem the property was to expire on February 17, 1984.

Petitioner sent a letter dated August 25, 1983 to respondent PNB, requesting that it be granted an extension of time to redeem/repurchase the property.8 In its reply dated August 30, 1983, respondent PNB informed petitioner that the request had been referred to its Pasay City Branch for appropriate action and recommendation.9

In a letter10 dated February 10, 1984, petitioner reiterated its request for a one year extension from February 17, 1984 within which to redeem/repurchase the property on installment basis. It reiterated its request to repurchase the property on installment.11 Meanwhile, some PNB Pasay City Branch personnel informed petitioner that as a matter of policy, the bank does not accept "partial redemption."12

Since petitioner failed to redeem the property, the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. 32098 on June 1, 1984, and issued a new title in favor of respondent PNB.13 Petitioner's offers had not yet been acted upon by respondent PNB.

Meanwhile, the Special Assets Management Department (SAMD) had prepared a statement of account, and as of June 25, 1984 petitioner's obligation amounted to P1,574,560.47. This included the bid price of P1,056,924.50, interest, advances of insurance premiums, advances on realty taxes, registration expenses, miscellaneous expenses and publication cost.14 When apprised of the statement of account, petitioner remitted P725,000.00 to respondent PNB as "deposit to repurchase," and Official Receipt No. 978191 was issued to it.15

In the meantime, the SAMD recommended to the management of respondent PNB that petitioner be allowed to repurchase the property for P1,574,560.00. In a letter dated November 14, 1984, the PNB management informed petitioner that it was rejecting the offer and the recommendation of the SAMD. It was suggested that petitioner purchase the property for P2,660,000.00, its minimum market value. Respondent PNB gave petitioner until December 15, 1984 to act on the proposal; otherwise, its P725,000.00 deposit would be returned and the property would be sold to other interested buyers.16

Petitioner, however, did not agree to respondent PNB's proposal. Instead, it wrote another letter dated December 12, 1984 requesting for a reconsideration. Respondent PNB replied in a letter dated December 28, 1984, wherein it reiterated its proposal that petitioner purchase the property for P2,660,000.00. PNB again informed petitioner that it would return the deposit should petitioner desire to withdraw its offer to purchase the property.17 On February 25, 1985, petitioner, through counsel, requested that PNB reconsider its letter dated December 28, 1984. Petitioner declared that it had already agreed to the SAMD's offer to purchase the property for P1,574,560.47, and that was why it had paid P725,000.00. Petitioner warned respondent PNB that it would seek judicial recourse should PNB insist on the position.18

On June 4, 1985, respondent PNB informed petitioner that the PNB Board of Directors had accepted petitioner's offer to purchase the property, but for P1,931,389.53 in cash less the P725,000.00 already deposited with it.19 On page two of the letter was a space above the typewritten name of petitioner's President, Pablo Gabriel, where he was to affix his signature. However, Pablo Gabriel did not conform to the letter but merely indicated therein that he had received it.20 Petitioner did not respond, so PNB requested petitioner in a letter dated June 30, 1988 to submit an amended offer to repurchase.

Petitioner rejected respondent's proposal in a letter dated July 14, 1988. It maintained that respondent PNB had agreed to sell the property for P1,574,560.47, and that since its P725,000.00 downpayment had been accepted, respondent PNB was proscribed from increasing the purchase price of the property.21 Petitioner averred that it had a net balance payable in the amount of P643,452.34. Respondent PNB, however, rejected petitioner's offer to pay the balance of P643,452.34 in a letter dated August 1, 1989.22

On August 28, 1989, petitioner filed a complaint against respondent PNB for "Annulment of Mortgage and Mortgage Foreclosure, Delivery of Title, or Specific Performance with Damages." To support its cause of action for specific performance, it alleged the following:

34. As early as June 25, 1984, PNB had accepted the down payment from Manila Metal in the substantial amount of P725,000.00 for the redemption/repurchase price of P1,574,560.47 as approved by its SMAD and considering the reliance made by Manila Metal and the long time that has elapsed, the approval of the higher management of the Bank to confirm the agreement of its SMAD is clearly a potestative condition which cannot legally prejudice Manila Metal which has acted and relied on the approval of SMAD. The Bank cannot take advantage of a condition which is entirely dependent upon its own will after accepting and benefiting from the substantial payment made by Manila Metal.

35. PNB approved the repurchase price of P1,574,560.47 for which it accepted P725,000.00 from Manila Metal. PNB cannot take advantage of its own delay and long inaction in demanding a higher amount based on unilateral computation of interest rate without the consent of Manila Metal.

Petitioner later filed an amended complaint and supported its claim for damages with the following arguments:

36. That in order to protect itself against the wrongful and malicious acts of the defendant Bank, plaintiff is constrained to engage the services of counsel at an agreed fee of P50,000.00 and to incur litigation expenses of at least P30,000.00, which the defendant PNB should be condemned to pay the plaintiff Manila Metal.

37. That by reason of the wrongful and malicious actuations of defendant PNB, plaintiff Manila Metal suffered besmirched reputation for which defendant PNB is liable for moral damages of at least P50,000.00.

38. That for the wrongful and malicious act of defendant PNB which are highly reprehensible, exemplary damages should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff by way of example or correction for the public good of at least P30,000.00.23

Petitioner prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in its favor, thus:

a) Declaring the Amended Real Estate Mortgage (Annex "A") null and void and without any legal force and effect.

b) Declaring defendant's acts of extra-judicially foreclosing the mortgage over plaintiff's property and setting it for auction sale null and void.

c) Ordering the defendant Register of Deeds to cancel the new title issued in the name of PNB (TCT NO. 43792) covering the property described in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, to reinstate TCT No. 37025 in the name of Manila Metal and to cancel the annotation of the mortgage in question at the back of the TCT No. 37025 described in paragraph 4 of this Complaint.

d) Ordering the defendant PNB to return and/or deliver physical possession of the TCT No. 37025 described in paragraph 4 of this Complaint to the plaintiff Manila Metal.

e) Ordering the defendant PNB to pay the plaintiff Manila Metal's actual damages, moral and exemplary damages in the aggregate amount of not less than P80,000.00 as may be warranted by the evidence and fixed by this Honorable Court in the exercise of its sound discretion, and attorney's fees of P50,000.00 and litigation expenses of at least P30,000.00 as may be proved during the trial, and costs of suit.

Plaintiff likewise prays for such further reliefs which may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.24

In its Answer to the complaint, respondent PNB averred, as a special and affirmative defense, that it had acquired ownership over the property after the period to redeem had elapsed. It claimed that no contract of sale was perfected between it and petitioner after the period to redeem the property had expired.

During pre-trial, the parties agreed to submit the case for decision, based on their stipulation of facts.25 The parties agreed to limit the issues to the following:

1. Whether or not the June 4, 1985 letter of the defendant approving/accepting plaintiff's offer to purchase the property is still valid and legally enforceable.

2. Whether or not the plaintiff has waived its right to purchase the property when it failed to conform with the conditions set forth by the defendant in its letter dated June 4, 1985.

3. Whether or not there is a perfected contract of sale between the parties.26

While the case was pending, respondent PNB demanded, on September 20, 1989, that petitioner vacate the property within 15 days from notice,27 but petitioners refused to do so.

On March 18, 1993, petitioner offered to repurchase the property for P3,500,000.00.28 The offer was however rejected by respondent PNB, in a letter dated April 13, 1993. According to it, the prevailing market value of the property was approximately P30,000,000.00, and as a matter of policy, it could not sell the property for less than its market value.29 On June 21, 1993, petitioner offered to purchase the property for P4,250,000.00 in cash.30 The offer was again rejected by respondent PNB on September 13, 1993.31

On May 31, 1994, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the amended complaint and respondent PNB's counterclaim. It ordered respondent PNB to refund the P725,000.00 deposit petitioner had made.32 The trial court ruled that there was no perfected contract of sale between the parties; hence, petitioner had no cause of action for specific performance against respondent. The trial court declared that respondent had rejected petitioner's offer to repurchase the property. Petitioner, in turn, rejected the terms and conditions contained in the June 4, 1985 letter of the SAMD. While petitioner had offered to repurchase the property per its letter of July 14, 1988, the amount of P643,422.34 was way below the P1,206,389.53 which respondent PNB had demanded. It further declared that the P725,000.00 remitted by petitioner to respondent PNB on June 4, 1985 was a "deposit," and not a downpayment or earnest money.

On appeal to the CA, petitioner made the following allegations:

I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S LETTER DATED 4 JUNE 1985 APPROVING/ACCEPTING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S OFFER TO PURCHASE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLLANT WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO PURCHASE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEN IT FAILED TO CONFORM WITH CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE IN ITS LETTER DATED 4 JUNE 1985.

IV

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT IT WAS THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE WHICH RENDERED IT DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TO COMPLETE THE BALANCE OF THEIR PURCHASE PRICE.

V

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO VALID RESCISSION OR CANCELLATION OF SUBJECT CONTRACT OF REPURCHASE.

VI

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED AND REFUSED TO SUBMIT THE AMENDED REPURCHASE OFFER.

VII

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

VIII

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT AWARDING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ACTUAL, MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, ATTOTRNEY'S FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES.33

Meanwhile, on June 17, 1993, petitioner's Board of Directors approved Resolution No. 3-004, where it waived, assigned and transferred its rights over the property covered by TCT No. 33099 and TCT No. 37025 in favor of Bayani Gabriel, one of its Directors.34 Thereafter, Bayani Gabriel executed a Deed of Assignment over 51% of the ownership and management of the property in favor of Reynaldo Tolentino, who later moved for leave to intervene as plaintiff-appellant. On July 14, 1993, the CA issued a resolution granting the motion,35 and likewise granted the motion of Reynaldo Tolentino substituting petitioner MMCC, as plaintiff-appellant, and his motion to withdraw as intervenor.36

The CA rendered judgment on May 11, 2000 affirming the decision of the RTC.37 It declared that petitioner obviously never agreed to the selling price proposed by respondent PNB (P1,931,389.53) since petitioner had kept on insisting that the selling price should be lowered to P1,574,560.47. Clearly therefore, there was no meeting of the minds between the parties as to the price or consideration of the sale.

The CA ratiocinated that petitioner's original offer to purchase the subject property had not been accepted by respondent PNB. In fact, it made a counter-offer through its June 4, 1985 letter specifically on the selling price; petitioner did not agree to the counter-offer; and the negotiations did not prosper. Moreover, petitioner did not pay the balance of the purchase price within the sixty-day period set in the June 4, 1985 letter of respondent PNB. Consequently, there was no perfected contract of sale, and as such, there was no contract to rescind.

According to the appellate court, the claim for damages and the counterclaim were correctly dismissed by the court a quo for no evidence was presented to support it. Respondent PNB's letter dated June 30, 1988 cannot revive the failed negotiations between the parties. Respondent PNB merely asked petitioner to submit an amended offer to repurchase. While petitioner reiterated its request for a lower selling price and that the balance of the repurchase be reduced, however, respondent rejected the proposal in a letter dated August 1, 1989.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA likewise denied.

Thus, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, alleging that:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE IS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.

II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE AMOUNT OF PHP725,000.00 PAID BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT AN EARNEST MONEY.

III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT TO SIGNIFY ITS CONFORMITY TO THE TERMS CONTAINED IN PNB'S JUNE 4, 1985 LETTER MEANS THAT THERE WAS NO VALID AND LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW THAT NON-PAYMENT OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT OF THE BALANCE OF THE OFFERED PRICE IN THE LETTER OF PNB DATED JUNE 4, 1985, WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF APPROVAL CONSTITUTES NO VALID AND LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

V. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE LETTERS OF PETITIONER-APPELLANT DATED MARCH 18, 1993 AND JUNE 21, 1993, OFFERING TO BUY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT DIFFERENT AMOUNT WERE PROOF THAT THERE IS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE.38

The threshold issue is whether or not petitioner and respondent PNB had entered into a perfected contract for petitioner to repurchase the property from respondent.

Petitioner maintains that it had accepted respondent's offer made through the SAMD, to sell the property for P1,574,560.00. When the acceptance was made in its letter dated June 25, 1984; it then deposited P725,000.00 with the SAMD as partial payment, evidenced by Receipt No. 978194 which respondent had issued. Petitioner avers that the SAMD's acceptance of the deposit amounted to an acceptance of its offer to repurchase. Moreover, as gleaned from the letter of SAMD dated June 4, 1985, the PNB Board of Directors had approved petitioner's offer to purchase the property. It claims that this was the suspensive condition, the fulfillment of which gave rise to the contract. Respondent could no longer unilaterally withdraw its offer to sell the property for P1,574,560.47, since the acceptance of the offer resulted in a perfected contract of sale; it was obliged to remit to respondent the balance of the original purchase price of P1,574,560.47, while respondent was obliged to transfer ownership and deliver the property to petitioner, conformably with Article 1159 of the New Civil Code.

Petitioner posits that respondent was proscribed from increasing the interest rate after it had accepted respondent's offer to sell the property for P1,574,560.00. Consequently, respondent could no longer validly make a counter-offer of P1,931,789.88 for the purchase of the property. It likewise maintains that, although the P725,000.00 was considered as "deposit for the repurchase of the property" in the receipt issued by the SAMD, the amount constitutes earnest money as contemplated in Article 1482 of the New Civil Code. Petitioner cites the rulings of this Court in Villonco v. Bormaheco39 and Topacio v. Court of Appeals.40

Petitioner avers that its failure to append its conformity to the June 4, 1984 letter of respondent and its failure to pay the balance of the price as fixed by respondent within the 60-day period from notice was to protest respondent's breach of its obligation to petitioner. It did not amount to a rejection of respondent's offer to sell the property since respondent was merely seeking to enforce its right to pay the balance of P1,570,564.47. In any event, respondent had the option either to accept the balance of the offered price or to cause the rescission of the contract.

Petitioner's letters dated March 18, 1993 and June 21, 1993 to respondent during the pendency of the case in the RTC were merely to compromise the pending lawsuit, they did not constitute separate offers to repurchase the property. Such offer to compromise should not be taken against it, in accordance with Section 27, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.

For its part, respondent contends that the parties never graduated from the "negotiation stage" as they could not agree on the amount of the repurchase price of the property. All that transpired was an exchange of proposals and counter-proposals, nothing more. It insists that a definite agreement on the amount and manner of payment of the price are essential elements in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. There was no such agreement in this case. Primarily, the concept o