This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-07-31 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioner could no longer belatedly contest the efficacy of the contract after it accepted the payments of respondents. On the contrary, its conduct only affirmed that the contract was binding and subsisting. Had it believed otherwise, it would not have honored respondents' advance payments after the alleged lapse of the one-year redemption period. In other words, petitioner's acceptance of the payments was a clear manifestation of its consent to the contract, thereby precluding it from rejecting the contract's binding effect.[13] | |||||