Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. CONSTANTE FIRME AND AZUCENA E. FIRME v. BUKAL ENTERPRISES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 172674 2007-07-12	SPS. JORGE NAVARRA AND CARMELITA BERNARDO NAVARRA AND RRRC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK GARCIA, J.
The Navarras' attempt to prove the existence of a perfected contract of sale all the more becomes futile in the light of the evidence that there was in the first place no acceptance of their offer. It should be noted that aside from their first letter dated July 18, 1985, the Navarras wrote another letter dated August 20, 1985, this time requesting the Bank that the down payment of P300,000.00 be instead taken from the excess payment made by the RRRC in redeeming its own foreclosed properties. The very circumstance that the Navarras had to make this new request is a clear indication that no definite agreement has yet been reached at that point. As we see it, this request constitutes a new offer on the part of the Navarras, which offer was again conditionally accepted by the Bank as in fact it even required the Navarras to submit a board resolution of RRRC before it could proceed with the proposed sale/repurchase. The eventual failure of the spouses to submit the required board resolution precludes the perfection of a contract of sale/repurchase between the parties. As earlier mentioned, contracts are perfected when there is concurrence of the parties' wills, manifested by the acceptance by one of the offer made by the other.[9] Here, there was no concurrence of the offer and acceptance as would result in a perfected contract of sale.
	GR NO. 154493 2006-12-06	REYNALDO VILLANUEVA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To begin with, PNB-General Santos Branch, which accepted petitioner's P380,000.00 payment, and PNB-SAMD, which accepted his P200,000.00 payment, had no authority to bind respondent to a contract of sale with petitioner.[33] Petitioner is well aware of this. To recall, petitioner sent his June 28, 1990 offer to PNB-General Santos Branch. Said branch did not act on his offer except to endorse it to Guevarra. Thereafter, petitioner transacted directly with Guevarra. Petitioner then cannot pretend that PNB-General Santos Branch had authority to accept his July 11, 1990 counter-offer by merely accepting his P380,000.00 payment.
	GR No. 152411 2004-09-29	UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. PHILAB INDUSTRIES CALLEJO, SR., J.
Prefatorily, the doctrinal rule is that pure questions of facts may not be the subject of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as this mode of appeal is generally restricted to questions of law.[27] However, this rule is not absolute. The Court may review the factual findings of the CA should they be contrary to those of the trial court.[28] Correspondingly, this Court may review findings of facts when the judgment of the CA is premised on a misapprehension of facts.[29]