1.Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc vs. CA Facts: On May 14, 1976, Philippine Remnants Co., Inc.

constituted BPI as its trustee to mana e, administer, and sell its real estate property. One such piece o! property placed under trust "as the disputed lot, a ##,$%6&s'uare meter lot at Barrio Ba on Ilo , Pasi , Metro Manila co(ered )y *C* +o. 49#1,,. Pedro Re(illa, -r., a licensed real estate )ro.er "as i(en !ormal authority )y BPI to sell the lot !or P1,$$$.$$ per s'uare meter. /e contacted 0l!onso 1im o! 1im.et.ai "ho a reed to )uy the land. Petitioner2s o!!icials and Re(illa "ere i(en permission )y Rolando 3. 0romin, BPI 0ssistant 3ice&President, to enter and (ie" the property they "ere )uyin . Petitioner2s o!!icials, 0l!onso 1im and 0l)ino 1im.et.ai, "ent to BPI to con!irm the sale and they "ere entertained )y 3ice&President Merlin 0l)ano and 0sst. 3ice&President 0romin. *he parties !inally a reed that the lot "ould )e sold at P1,$$$.$$ per s'uare meter to )e paid in cash. +ot"ithstandin the !inal a reement to pay P1,$$$.$$ per s'uare meter on a cash )asis, 0l!onso 1im as.ed i! it "as possi)le to pay on terms. *he )an. o!!icials stated that there "as no harm in tryin to as. !or payment on terms )ecause in pre(ious transactions, the same had )een allo"ed. It "as the understandin , ho"e(er, that should the term payment )e disappro(ed, then the price shall )e paid in cash. It "as 0l)ano "ho dictated the terms under "hich the installment payment may )e appro(ed, and actin thereon, 0l!onso 1im "rote BPI throu h Merlin 0l)ano em)odyin the payment initially o! 1$4 and the remainin 9$4 "ithin a period o! 9$ days. *"o or three days later, petitioner learned that its o!!er to pay on terms had )een !ro5en. 0l!onso 1im "ent to BPI and tendered the !ull payment o! P##,$%6,$$$.$$ to 0l)ano. *he payment "as re!used )ecause 0l)ano stated that the authority to sell that particular piece o! property in Pasi had )een "ithdra"n !rom his unit. *he same chec. "as tendered to BPI 3ice&President +elson Bona "ho also re!used to recei(e payment. Petitioner !iled an action !or speci!ic per!ormance "ith dama es a ainst BPI. In the course o! the trial, BPI in!ormed the trial court that it had sold the property under liti ation to +ational Boo. 6tore. *he complaint "as thus amended to include +B6. R*C ruled that there "as a per!ected contract o! sale )et"een petitioner and BPI. It stated that there "as mutual consent )et"een the parties7 the su)8ect matter is de!inite7 and the consideration "as determined. It concluded that all the elements o! a consensual contract are attendant. It ordered the cancellation o! a sale e!!ected )y BPI to respondent +ational Boo. 6tore 9+B6: "hile the case "as pendin and the nulli!ication o! a title issued in !a(or o! said respondent +B6. C0 held that no contract o! sale "as per!ected )ecause there "as no concurrence o! the three re'uisites enumerated in 0rticle 1#1; o! the Ci(il Code. Issue: <hether or not there "as a per!ected contract )et"een 1im.et.ai and BPI co(erin the sale o! a parcel o! land. Held: =es. *here "as a per!ected contract )et"een BPI and petitioner 1im.et.ai7 that the BPI o!!icials "ho transacted "ith petitioner had !ull authority to )ind the )an.7 that the e(idence supportin the sale is competent and admissi)le7 and that the sale o! the lot to +B6 durin the trial o! the case "as characteri5ed )y )ad !aith. *he re'uirements in the payment o! the purchase price on terms instead o! cash "ere su ested )y BPI 3ice&President 0l)ano. 6ince the authority i(en to )ro.er Re(illa speci!ied cash payment, the possi)ility o! payin on terms "as re!erred to the *rust Committee )ut "ith the mutual a reement that i! the proposed payment on terms "ill not )e appro(ed )y our *rust Committee, 1im.et.ai should pay in cash, the amount "as no lon er su)8ect to the appro(al or disappro(al o! the Committee, it is only on the terms. *he record sho"s that i! payment "as in cash, either )ro.er Re(illa or 0romin had !ull authority. But )ecause petitioner too. ad(anta e o! the su estion o! 3ice&President 0l)ano, the matter "as sent to hi her o!!icials. Immediately upon learnin that payment on terms "as !ro5en and>or denied, 1im.et.ai e?ercised his ri ht "ithin the period i(en to him and tendered payment in !ull. *he BPI re8ected the payment. *he ne otiation or preparation sta e started "ith the authority i(en )y Philippine Remnants to BPI to sell the lot, !ollo"ed )y 9a: the authority i(en )y BPI and con!irmed )y Philippine Remnants to )ro.er Re(illa to sell the property, 9): the o!!er to sell to 1im.et.ai, 9c: the inspection o! the property and !inally 9d: the ne otiations "ith 0romin and 0l)ano at the BPI o!!ices. *he per!ection o! the contract too. place "hen 0romin and 0l)ano, actin !or BPI, a reed to sell and 0l!onso 1im "ith 0l)ino 1im.et.ai, actin !or petitioner 1im.et.ai, a reed to )uy the disputed lot at P1,$$$.$$ per s'uare meter. 0side !rom this there "as the earlier a reement )et"een petitioner and the authori5ed )ro.er. *here "as a concurrence o! o!!er and acceptance, on the o)8ect, and on the cause thereo!. *he alle ation o! +B6 that there "as no concurrence o! the o!!er and acceptance upon the cause o! the contract is )elied )y the testimony o! the (ery BPI o!!icial "ith "hom the contract "as per!ected. 0romin and 0l)ano

concluded the sale !or BPI. *he !act that the deed o! sale still had to )e si ned and notari5ed does not mean that no contract had already )een per!ected. 0 sale o! land is (alid re ardless o! the !orm it may ha(e )een entered into. *he re'uisite !orm under 0rticle 14%; o! the Ci(il Code is merely !or reater e!!icacy or con(enience and the !ailure to comply there"ith does not a!!ect the (alidity and )indin e!!ect o! the act )et"een the parties. Respondent +B6 i nored the notice o! lis pendens annotated on the title "hen it )ou ht the lot. It "as the "illin ness and desi n o! +B6 to )uy property already sold to another party "hich led BPI to dishonor the contract "ith 1im.et.ai. It is the (ery nature o! the deed o! a)solute sale )et"een BPI and +B6 "hich, ho"e(er, clearly ne ates any alle ation o! ood !aith on the part o! the )uyer. Instead o! the (endee insistin that the (endor uarantee its title to the land and reco ni5e the ri ht o! the (endee to proceed a ainst the (endor i! the title to the land turns out to )e de!ecti(e as "hen the land )elon s to another person, the re(erse is !ound in the deed o! sale )et"een BPI and +B6. 0ny losses "hich +B6 may incur in the e(ent the title turns out to )e (ested in another person are to )e )orne )y +B6 alone. BPI is e?pressly !reed under the contract !rom any recourse o! +B6 a ainst it should BPI2s title )e !ound de!ecti(e. Villamor vs CA Facts: In -uly 1971, Macaria, o"ner o! a 6$$ s'uare meter lot located at Baesa, Caloocan City, sold a portion o! #$$ s'uare meters o! the lot to the 6pouses -ulio and Marina and 3illamor !or the total amount o! P,1,$$$.$$. @arlier, Macaria )orro"ed P,,$$$.$$ !rom the spouses "hich amount "as deducted !rom the total purchase price o! the #$$ s'uare meter lot sold. *he portion sold to the 3illamor spouses. Macaria e?ecuted a ABeed o! OptionA in !a(or o! 3illamor in "hich the remainin #$$ s'uare meter portion o! the lot "ould )e sold to 3illamor under the conditions that Marcaria, "ith the con!ormity o! her hus)and, Ro)erto Reyes, ha(e sold one&hal! thereo! to the a!oresaid spouses -ulio 3illamor and Marina 3. 3illamor at the price o! P7$.$$ per s'. meter, "hich "as reatly hi her than the actual reasona)le pre(ailin (alue o! lands in that place. *hat the only reason "hy the 6pouses&(endees -ulio 3illamor and Marina 3. 3illamor, a reed to )uy the said one& hal! portion at the price o! a)out P7$.$$ per s'uare meter, is )ecause Reyes spouses ha(e a reed to sell and con(ey to them the remainin one&hal! portion still o"ned )y Macaria, "hene(er the need o! such sale arises, either on our part or on the part o! the spouses 9-ulio: 3illamor and Marina 3. 3illamor, at the same price o! P7$.$$ per s'uare meter, e?cludin "hate(er impro(ement may )e !ound the thereon. 0ccordin to Macaria, "hen her hus)and, Ro)erto Reyes, retired in 19;4, they o!!ered to repurchase the lot sold )y them to the 3illamor spouses )ut Marina 3illamor re!used and reminded them instead that the Beed o! Option in !act a(e them the option to purchase the remainin portion o! the lot. *he 3illamors, on the other hand, claimed that they had e?pressed their desire to purchase the remainin #$$ s'uare meter portion o! the lot )ut the Reyeses had )een i norin them. *hus, on -uly 1#, 19;7, a!ter conciliation proceedin s in the )aran ay le(el !ailed, they !iled a complaint !or speci!ic per!ormance a ainst the Reyeses. R*C ruled in !a(or o! the 3illamor spouses orderin the Reyes spouses to sell the land. Reyes spouses appealed to the C0 and rendered a decision re(ersin the decision o! the R*C. *he re(ersal o! the trial courtCs decision "as premised on the !indin o! respondent court that the Beed o! Option is (oid !or lac. o! consideration. Issue: <hether or not the Beed o! Option "as (oid !or lac. o! consideration separate and distinct !rom the purchase price stipulated. Held: +o. *he consideration is Athe "hy o! the contracts, the essential reason "hich mo(es the contractin parties to enter into the contract.A *he cause or the impellin reason on the part o! pri(ate respondent e?ecutin the deed o! option as appearin in the deed itsel! is the petitioner2s ha(in a reed to )uy the #$$ s'uare meter portion o! pri(ate respondents2 land at P7$.$$ per s'uare meter A"hich "as reatly hi her than the actual reasona)le pre(ailin price.A *his cause or consideration is clear !rom the deed "hich "as stated in the a)o(e conditions. Plainti!!&appellees a reed to pay P7$.$$ per s'uare meter !or the portion purchased )y them althou h the pre(ailin price at that time "as only P,%.$$ in consideration o! the option to )uy the remainder o! the land. *his does not seem to )e the case. In the !irst place, the deed o! sale "as ne(er produced )y them to pro(e their claim. Be!endant&appellants testi!ied that no copy o! the deed o! sale had e(er )een i(en to them )y the plainti!!&appellees. In the second place, i! this "as really the condition o! the prior sale, the court see no reason "hy it should )e reiterated in the Beed o! Option. On the contrary, the alle ed o(erprice paid )y the plainti!!&appellees is i(en in the Beed as reason !or the desire o! the 3illamors to ac'uire the land rather than as a consideration !or the option i(en to them, althou h one mi ht "onder "hy they too. nearly 1# years to in(o.e their ri ht i! they really "ere in due need o! the lot.

*he consideration needed to support a unilateral promise to sell is a distinct one, not somethin that is as uncertain as P7$.$$ per s'uare meter "hich is alle edly 2 reatly hi her than the actual pre(ailin (alue o! lands.2 0 sale must )e !or a price certain 90rt. 14%;:. Dor ho" much the portion con(eyed to the plainti!!&appellees "as sold so that the )alance could )e considered the consideration !or the promise to sell has not )een sho"n, )eyond a mere alle ation that it "as (ery much )elo" P7$.$$ per s'uare meter. *he !act that plainti!!&appellees mi ht ha(e paid P1;.$$ per s'uare meter !or another land at the time o! the sale to them o! a portion o! de!endant&appellant2s lot does not necessarily pro(e that the pre(ailin mar.et price at the time o! the sale "as P1;.$$ per s'uare meter. 9In !act they claim it "as P,%.$$:. It is impro)a)le that plainti!!& appellees should pay P%,.$$ per s'uare meter !or the pri(ile e o! )uyin "hen the (alue o! the land itsel! "as alle edly P1;.$$ per s'uare meter. *he respondent appellate court !ailed to i(e due consideration to petitioners2 e(idence "hich sho"s that in 1969 the 3illamor spouses )ou h an ad8acent lot !rom the )rother o! Macaria 1a)in &isa !or only P1;.$$ per s'uare meter "hich the pri(ate respondents did not re)ut. *hus, e?pressed in terms o! money, the consideration !or the deed o! option is the di!!erence )et"een the purchase price o! the #$$ s'uare meter portion o! the lot in 1971 9P7$.$$ per s'.m.: and the pre(ailin reasona)le price o! the same lot in 1971. <hate(er it is, 9P,%.$$ or P1;.$$: thou h not speci!ically stated in the deed o! option, "as ascertaina)le. Petitioner2s alle edly payin P%,.$$ per s'uare meter !or the option may, as opined )y the appellate court, )e impro)a)le )ut impro)a)ilities does not in(alidate a contract !reely entered into )y the parties. It held that the cause or the impellin reason on the part o! the )uyers&o!!erees in e?ecutin the deed o! option as appearin in the deed itsel! "as the sellers&o!!erorsC ha(in a reed to )uy the ori inal hal! o! the land at P7$.$$ per s'uare meter E"hich "as reatly hi her than the actual reasona)le pre(ailin price and that such cause or consideration is clear !rom the deed itsel!. +ote that the separate consideration under the option "as in !act an inte ral part o! the hi her price they paid ori inally !or the !irst parcel o! land )ou ht, "hich the Court considered to )e !ine, so lon as it "as not part o! the price to )e paid !or the other parcel o! land. 7. Soriano vs autista Facts: On May #$, 19%6, 6pouses Basilio Bautista and 6o!ia de Rosas !or and in consideration o! the sum o! P1,;$$, mort a ed their property located in *eresa, Ri5al and si ned a document entitled AFasulatan + 6an laanA in !a(or o! Ruperto 6oriano and Olimpia de -esus, under the !ollo"in terms and conditionsG 1. +a an san laan ito ay ma papatuloy laman han an dala"an 9,: taon pasimula sa ara" na la daan an .asunduan ito, at ma papalampas n dala"an panahon ani o ani a ricola. ,. +a an aanihin n )u.id na isinan la ay mapupunta sa pina san laan )ilan pa.ina)an n na)an it na hala an inutan . #. +a an )u"is sa pamahalaan n lupan ito ay an ma )a)ayad ay an +a san la o mayari. 4. +a an lupan nasan lan ito ay hindi na maaarin isan la pan muli sa i)an tao n "alan pahintulot an Hnan Pina san laan. %. +a pina .asunduan din dinatnan na sa.alin ma .aroon n .a.ayahan an Pina san laan ay maaarin )ilhin n patuluyan n lupan nasan lan ito .ahit anon ara" sa loo) n tanin na dala"an taon n san laan sa hala an *atlon 1i)o at 6iam na Raan Piso 9P#,9$$.$$:, salapin Pilipino na pina .aisahan. 6. +a sa.alin an pa .a.ataon na ipina .aloo) n +a san la sa sinundan talata ay hindi maisa a"a n Pina san laan sa Fa"alan n mai)ayad at ayon din naman an +a san la na hindi ma )ali. an hala an inutan sa tanin na panahon, an san laan ito ay lulutasin alinsunod sa itinata u)ilin n )atas sa )a ay&)a ay n san laan, na ito ay an tinata"a na 9DOR@C1O6HR@ OD MOR*I0I@6, -HBICI01 OR @J*R0 -HBICI01:. Maarin ma.apili n ha.)an an Pina san laan, alinsunod sa )atas o .aya naman ay pa usapan n dala"an parte an ma)utin paraan n pa lutas n )a ay na ito. *he spouses Basilio Bautista and 6o!ia de Rosas trans!erred the possession o! the said land to Ruperto 6oriano and Olimpia de -esus "ho ha(e )een and are still in possess o! the said property and ha(e since that date )een and culti(atin the said land and ha(e en8oyed and are still en8oyin the produce thereo! to the e?clusion o! all other persons. On May 1#, 19%;, a certain 0tty. 0n el O. 3er "rote a letter to the spouses Bautista "hose letterin!ormin the said spouses that his clients Ruperto 6oriano and Olimpia de -esus ha(e decided to )uy the parcel o! land in 'uestion pursuant to para raph % o! the document in 'uestion. *he spouses inspite o! the receipt o! the letter re!used comply "ith the demand contained therein. Bautista re!used to sell the said property contendin that they cannot )e depri(ed o! the ri ht to redeem the mort a ed property, )ecause such ri ht is inherent in and insepara)le !rom this .ind o! contract. Issue: <hether or not 6oriano may purchase said land a)solutely on any date "ithin the t"o&year term o! the mort a e at the a reed price o! P#,9$$.

Held: =es. *he mort a or2s promise to sell is supported )y the same consideration as that o! the mort a e itsel!, "hich is distinct !rom that "hich "ould support the sale, an additional amount ha(in )een a reed upon to ma.e up the entire price o! P#,9$$.$$, should the option )e e?ercised. *he mort a ors2 promise "as in the nature o! a continuin o!!er, non&"ithdra"a)le durin a period o! t"o years, "hich upon acceptance )y the mort a ees a(e rise to a per!ected contract o! purchase and sale. Re!erence is made in appellants2 )rie! to the !act that they tendered the sum o! P1,;$$.$$ to redeem mort a e )e!ore they !iled their complaint. *hat tender "as ine!!ecti(e !or the purpose intended. In the !irst place it must ha(e )een made a!ter the option to purchase had )een e?ercised )y appellees and secondly, appellants2 to redeem could )e de!eated )y appellees2 preempti(e ri ht to purchase "ithin the period o! t"o years !rom May #$, 19%6. 0s already noted, such ri ht "as a(ailed o! appellants "ere accordin ly noti!ied )y letter dated May 1#, 19%;, "hich "as recei(ed )y them on the !ollo"in May ,,. O!!er and acceptance con(er ed and a(e to a per!ected and )indin contract o! purchase and sale. Montilla vs CA Facts: @milio 0ra on, -r. compel 1ina Montilla to comply "ith a (er)al contract to sell to him a piece o! land situated at Poblacion, Iloilo City. In his complaint, 0ra on claimed that in the last "ee. o! -une, 1969, Montilla had orally o!!ered to sell the lot to him at a price o! P%7,6%$.$$ 9at the rate o! P%$.$$ per s'uare meter:, the price )ein paya)le at any time "ithin a three&year period !rom -une, 1969 pro(ided that 0ra on constructed on the lot a house o! stron materials and paid a nominal monthly rental in the meantime7 )ut despite 0ra on2s acceptance o! the o!!er, !ul!illment )y him o! the speci!ied conditions, and his seasona)le tender o! the purchase price, Montilla had re!used to comply "ith her o)li ation. Montilla cate orically denied e(er ha(in entered into such an a reement, and set up the a!!irmati(e de!enses o! 91: unen!orcea)ility o! the alle ed a reement under the 6tatute o! Drauds7 and 9,: !ailure o! the complaint to state a cause o! action, no alle ation ha(in )een made therein o! any consideration !or the promise to sell distinct and separate !rom the price, as re'uired )y 0rticle 1479 o! the Ci(il Code. *rial court rendered 8ud ment sentencin Montilla to e?ecute the re'uisite deed o! con(eyance in !a(or o! 0ra on on the round that Montilla admitted the e?istence o! the alle ed (er)al contract to sell the land. Issue: <hether or not a (er)al contract "as esta)lishedK Held: +o. It is, in the !irst place, di!!icult to see )y "hat process o! ratiocination the *rial Court arri(ed at the conclusion that Montilla2s ans"er had Aadmitted the o!!er to sell.A 0ny such admission is a)solutely precluded )y the speci!ic and une'ui(ocal denial )y Montilla o! the claimed (er)al contract to sell. 6he in !act )randed the alle ations to that e!!ect in the complaint as "outrageously false, fantastically ridiculous and despicable fabrications of plaintiff." +or may any admission )e in!erred !rom the circumstance that Montilla, apart !rom un'uali!iedly denyin the contract to sell, had also asserted in her responsi(e pleadin that the contract "as unen!orcea)le )ecause (iolati(e o! the 6tatute o! Drauds and )ecause not supported )y any consideration distinct !rom the price. Dor "hile those de!enses imply an acceptance )y the pleader o! the truth o! the a reement at "hich the de!enses are directed, the acceptance is at )est hypothetical, assumed only !or purposes o! determinin the (alidity o! the de!enses, )ut cannot in any sense )e ta.en as an unconditional and irretrie(a)ly )indin !actual admission. *he import o! the ans"er, couched in lan ua e that could not )e made any plainer is that there "as no (er)al contract to sell e(er a reed to )y Montilla, )ut that, e(en assumin hypothetically, or !or the sa.e o! ar ument that there "as, the a reement "as unen!orcea)le )ecause in )reach o! the 6tatute o! Drauds. It "as there!ore re(ersi)le error !or the *rial Court to ha(e )urdened Montilla "ith an admission o! the (er)al contract to sell sued upon. *here )ein there!ore no admission "hate(er on Montilla2s part o! the e?istence or rati!ication o! the claimed contract to sell, and ta.in account o! her disa(o"al in her pleadin s and in her e(idence o! that contract, and necessarily o! any !ul!illment o! the terms thereo!, it is clear that the action !or its en!orcement should ha(e )een dismissed pursuant to the 6tatute o! Drauds. *he action is also dismissi)le upon another le al round. 0ssumin arguendo (erita)ility o! the oral promise to sell )y Montilla, the promise "as ne(ertheless not )indin upon her in (ie" o! the a)sence o! any consideration there!or distinct !rom the stipulated price. *his is the principle laid do"n )y the second para raph o! 0rticle 1479G A0n accepted unilateral promise to sell a determinate thin !or a price certain is )indin upon the promissor i! the promise is supported )y a consideration distinct !rom the price.A