SALONGA

Tayag (petitioner) vs. Lacson, Lacson-Espinosa, et.al. (respondents)

Petition for judicial review of the decision and resolution of the CA

Facts:
- March 17, 1996, a group of original farmers individually executed in favour of the petitioner separate
Deeds of Assignments; assignees assigned respective rights as tenants of the landholdings, for Php
50.00 per sqm.
- Petitioner also granted exclusive right to buy if and when the respondents, with concurrence of
defendants-tenants, agreed to sell the property.
- July 24, 1996, petitioner called a meeting to discuss agreements. August 8, 1996, defendants-tenants,
c/o Joven Mariano, told petitioner that they will not attend and gave notice of their selling their rights to
landowners.
- August 19, 1996, petitioner filed a complaint against defendants-tenants and respondents for the court
to fix a period within which to pay agreed purchase price.
- Petitioner prayed for an Injunction prohibiting, restraining defendants-tenants from rescinding their
contracts, so as to prevent irreparable damages to the petitioner.
- Defendants alleged in their answer that the money received from petitioner are loans. And that they did
not know that what they signed was a Deed of Assignment. They were led to think that they were signing
receipts to their loans. (consent was vitiated)
- Defendants-tenants have no right to transfer interest in property as they have no right to the property,
there contract is null and void.
- RTC granted injunction, defendants appealed to the CA, Tayag appealed to the SC

Issue: Whether the Deeds of Assignments issued were valid Option Contracts
RTC Decision: granted petitioner an Injunction as he is duly entitled to one since respondents and
defendants are yet to produce controverting evidence.

CA Decision: April 1998, CA decided against Tayag (petitioner) annulling the injunction granted, and
enjoining RTC (preventing) to continue with the case.

SC Decision:
- Respondents choosing not to adduce evidence is their right, therefore not a ground for grant of
injunction
- Respondents (Lacsons) not party to the alleged option contract. Tayag admitted he did not know any of
the respondents.
- “Unless and until the DAR approved said deeds, …, petitioner had no right to enforce the same in a
court of law by asking the RTC to fix a period w/in which to pay the balance of the purchase price …”
- “Not being registered owners of the property, the defendants-tenants could not legally grant to the
petitioner the option, much less the “exclusive right” to buy the property. As the latin saying goes, “NEMO
DAT QUOD NON HABET.”
- IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING:
1. Tayag not entitled to injunction
2. Injunction on defendants-tenants is nullified and lifted
3. RTC of Mabalacat, Pampanga is ORDERED to continue with the proceedings.
SO ORDERED. (First Division, Puno CJ (chair.))
SALONGA

Doctrine: “We do not agree with the contention of the petitioner that the deeds of assignment executed
by the defendants-tenants are perfected option contracts.43 An option is a contract by which the owner of
the property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price
within a certain time. It is a condition offered or contract by which the owner stipulates with another that
the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price within a certain time, or under, or in
compliance with certain terms and conditions, or which gives to the owner of the property the right to sell
or demand a sale. It imposes no binding obligation on the person holding the option, aside from the
consideration for the offer. Until accepted, it is not, properly speaking, treated as a contract. 44 The second
party gets in praesenti, not lands, not an agreement that he shall have the lands, but the right to call for
and receive lands if he elects.45 An option contract is a separate and distinct contract from which the
parties may enter into upon the conjunction of the option.”