This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-01-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Palattao v. Court of Appeals,[21] this Court held that if the acceptance of the offer was not absolute, such acceptance is insufficient to generate consent that would perfect a contract. Thus: Contracts that are consensual in nature, like a contract of sale, are perfected upon mere meeting of the minds. Once there is concurrence between the offer and the acceptance upon the subject matter, consideration, and terms of payment, a contract is produced. The offer must be certain. To convert the offer into a contract, the acceptance must be absolute and must not qualify the terms of the offer; it must be plain, unequivocal, unconditional, and without variance of any sort from the proposal. A qualified acceptance, or one that involves a new proposal, constitutes a counter-offer and is a rejection of the original offer. Consequently, when something is desired which is not exactly what is proposed in the offer, such acceptance is not sufficient to generate consent because any modification or variation from the terms of the offer annuls the offer.[22] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
|||||
| Neither do suits for annulment of sale, or title, or document affecting property operate to abate ejectment actions respecting the same property (Salinas v. Navarro [annulment of deed of sale with assumption of mortgage and/or to declare the same an equitable mortgage], 126 SCRA 167 [1983]; Ang Ping v. RTC [annulment of sale and title], 154 SCRA 153 [1987]; Caparros v. C.A. [annulment of title], 170 SCRA 758 [1989]; Dante v. Sison [annulment of sale with damages], 174 SCRA 517; Galgala v. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. [annulment of document], 177 SCRA 288 [1989]).[19] | |||||
|
2007-02-09 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A contract of sale is consensual in nature and is perfected upon mere meeting of the minds. When there is merely an offer by one party without acceptance of the other, there is no contract.[77] When the contract of sale is not perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of obligation, serve as a binding juridical relation between the parties.[78] | |||||
|
2006-12-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A definite agreement as to the price is an essential element of a binding agreement to sell personal or real property because it seriously affects the rights and obligations of the parties. Price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. The fixing of the price can never be left to the decision of one of the contracting parties. But a price fixed by one of the contracting parties, if accepted by the other, gives rise to a perfected sale.[46] A contract of sale is consensual in nature and is perfected upon mere meeting of the minds. When there is merely an offer by one party without acceptance of the other, there is no contract.[47] When the contract of sale is not perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of obligation, serve as a binding juridical relation between the parties.[48] | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| More significantly, a careful study of the merits of the case and the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, dictated the setting aside of the resolutions of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 69573 and Branch 215 in Civil Case No. Q-99-37219, as both are patently erroneous. Both dismissed petitioner's complaint for specific performance on the ground of forum-shopping. It is elementary that petitioner is not guilty of forum-shopping because there is no identity of issues and causes of action between the ejectment case which was appealed by petitioner from the MeTC to Branch 227, and the specific performance suit filed by petitioner in Branch 215. Without pre-empting the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 55949, it cannot be ignored that the primary issue before Branch 227, now pending review in CA-G.R. SP No. 55949, is not actually the validity of the MOA, as advanced by private respondents, but whether, based on private respondents' allegations in their complaint, the MeTC has jurisdiction over the case and whether private respondents have a cause of action for ejectment. It is well to state, by way of reminder, that while petitioner may have brought up the MOA in the ejectment suit, by way of defense, any ruling therein is merely provisional, only for purposes of resolving the issue of physical possession and is not res judicata or conclusive on the issue of the enforceability of the MOA, as such determination is not clothed with finality.[16] This is so because an ejectment case is simply designed to summarily restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties' opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings.[17] The Court has long recognized that suits for specific performance with damages do not affect ejectment actions; an ejectment case for non-payment of rentals is not prejudicial to an action to enforce the right of preemption or prior purchase of the leased premises.[18] Moreover, the consistent case law is that a judgment rendered in an ejectment case shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building nor shall it be conclusive as to the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving possession.[19] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In this case, the Spouses Firme flatly rejected the offer of Aviles to buy the Property on behalf of Bukal Enterprises. There was therefore no concurrence of the offer and the acceptance on the subject matter, consideration and terms of payment as would result in a perfected contract of sale.[44] Under Article 1475 of the Civil Code, the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds on the thing which is the object of the contract and on the price. | |||||