Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JARDINE DAVIES INC. v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 176425 2013-06-05	HEIRS OF MANUEL UY EK LIONG v. MAURICIA MEER CASTILLO PEREZ, J.
Although executed on the same day, it cannot likewise be gainsaid that the Agreement and the Kasunduan are independent contracts, with parties, objects and causes different from that of the other. Defined as a meeting of the minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other to give something or to render some service,[48] a contract requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (a) consent of the contracting parties; (b) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and, (c) cause of the obligation which is established.[49] Executed in exchange for the legal services of Atty. Zepeda and the financial assistance to be extended by Manuel, the Agreement concerned respondents' transfer of 40% of the avails of the suit, in the event of a favorable judgment in Civil Case No. 8085. While concededly subject to the same suspensive condition, the Kasunduan was, in contrast, concluded by respondents with Manuel alone, for the purpose of selling in favor of the latter 60% of their share in the subject parcels for the agreed price of P180,000.00. Given these clear distinctions, petitioners correctly argue that the CA reversibly erred in not determining the validity of the Kasunduan independent from that of the Agreement.
	GR No. 173622 2013-03-11	ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PEOPLE’S LANDLESS ASSOCIATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
As regards consent, "[w]hen there is merely an offer by one party without acceptance of the other, there is no contract."[52] The decision to accept a bidder's proposal must be communicated to the bidder.[53] However, a binding contract may exist between the parties whose minds have met, although they did not affix their signatures to any written document,[54] as acceptance may be expressed or implied.[55] It "can be inferred from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting parties."[56] Thus, we held: x x x The rule is that except where a formal acceptance is so required, although the acceptance must be affirmatively and clearly made and must be evidenced by some acts or conduct communicated to the offeror, it may be made either in a formal or an informal manner, and may be shown by acts, conduct, or words of the accepting party that clearly manifest a present intention or determination to accept the offer to buy or sell. Thus, acceptance may be shown by the acts, conduct, or words of a party recognizing the existence of the contract of sale.[57]
	GR NO. 155731 2007-09-03	LOLITA LOPEZ v. BODEGA CITY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Settled is the rule that contracts are perfected by mere consent, upon the acceptance by the offeree of the offer made by the offeror.[20] For a contract, to arise, the acceptance must be made known to the offeror.[21] Moreover, the acceptance of the thing and the cause, which are to constitute a contract, may be express or implied as can be inferred from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting parties.[22] A contract will be upheld as long as there is proof of consent, subject matter and cause; it is generally obligatory in whatever form it may have been entered into.[23]
	GR No. 157493 2007-02-05	OESMER v. PARAISO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is well-settled that contracts are perfected by mere consent, upon the acceptance by the offeree of the offer made by the offeror. From that moment, the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. To produce a contract, the acceptance must not qualify the terms of the offer. However, the acceptance may be express or implied. For a contract to arise, the acceptance must be made known to the offeror. Accordingly, the acceptance can be withdrawn or revoked before it is made known to the offeror.[13]
	GR No. 128120 2004-10-20	SWEDISH MATCH v. CA TINGA, J,
Granting arguendo, that the amount of US$36 million was a definite offer, it would remain as a mere offer in the absence of evidence of its acceptance. To produce a contract, there must be acceptance, which may be express or implied, but it must not qualify the terms of the offer.[47] The acceptance of an offer must be unqualified and absolute to perfect the contract.[48] In other words, it must be identical in all respects with that of the offer so as to produce consent or meeting of the minds.[49]
	GR No. 147410 2004-02-05	INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. ASSET BUILDERS CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
There is no issue as regards the subject of the contract or the cause of the obligation. The controversy lies in the consent whether there was an acceptance by petitioner of the offer made by respondent; and, if so, whether that acceptance was communicated to the latter, thereby perfecting the contract. The period given to the former within which to accept the offer was not itself founded upon or supported by any consideration. Therefore, under the law, respondent still had the freedom and the right to withdraw the offer by communicating such withdrawal to petitioner[62] before the latter's acceptance of the offer;[63] or, if the offer has been accepted,[64] before the acceptance came to be known by respondent.[65]