G.R. No. L-25494. June 14, 1972
Topics:
Article 1324 and Article 1479 of the Civil Code
Doctrines:
A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally demandable. An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price..
Summary:
Nicolas Sanchez and Severina Rigos executed an instrument entitled “Option to Purchase” where the latter “agreed, pledged, and committed [to sell]” to the former a block of land for Php1,500 in the province of Nueva Ecija. According to the Transfer Certificate, if Sanchez does not exercise his right to acquire within two years of the stated date, the option to purchase will be regarded to have expired and been canceled. As a result of Rigos rejecting Sanchez’s several payment proposals, the latter filed the current case for specific performance and damages. Both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in 1964, and the lower court decided in Sanchez’s favor, directing Rigos to accept the money that had been adjudicated to him and to sign the necessary deed of conveyance.
Facts:
Nicolas Sanchez and Severina Rigos executed an instrument entitled “Option to Purchase” where the latter “agreed, pledged, and committed [to sell]” to the former a block of land for Php1,500 in the province of Nueva Ecija. According to the Transfer Certificate, if Sanchez does not exercise his right to acquire within two years of the stated date, the option to purchase will be regarded to have expired and been canceled. As a result of Rigos rejecting Sanchez’s several payment proposals, the latter filed the current case for specific performance and damages. Both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in 1964, and the lower court decided in Sanchez’s favor, directing Rigos to accept the money that had been adjudicated to him and to sign the necessary deed of conveyance.
Issue:
In accordance with Article 1479 of the Civil Code, does Rigos have a duty to pursue the sale of the relevant piece of land?
Ruling:
By relying on Art. 1324, the lower court decided in Sanchez’s favor by assuming that such a consideration existed. However, since Art. 1479 specifically refers to “an approved unilateral pledge to acquire or to sell” and Art. 1354 applies to contracts in general, it governs this situation. 2. Art. 1479 requires the promisee (Sanchez) to prove the presence of the aforementioned separate consideration before they may compel the promisor (Rigos) to keep the promise in order for it to be binding upon the latter. Sanchez has not said that such consideration exists. Rigos has stated that such consideration does not exist as an unique defense, and by participating in the petition for a judgment on the pleadings, Sanchez implicitly accepts this.