The document summarizes a court case between Nicolas Sanchez and Severina Rigos regarding an option to purchase land. It describes how Sanchez and Rigos signed an agreement giving Sanchez two years to purchase land from Rigos for 1,510 pesos. Sanchez attempted to exercise this option multiple times within the period but Rigos rejected the payments. Sanchez then deposited the funds with the court and sued Rigos for specific performance. The court ruled in favor of Sanchez, finding that the option agreement was valid and binding once Sanchez accepted the offer to purchase before Rigos could withdraw her offer.
The document summarizes a court case between Nicolas Sanchez and Severina Rigos regarding an option to purchase land. It describes how Sanchez and Rigos signed an agreement giving Sanchez two years to purchase land from Rigos for 1,510 pesos. Sanchez attempted to exercise this option multiple times within the period but Rigos rejected the payments. Sanchez then deposited the funds with the court and sued Rigos for specific performance. The court ruled in favor of Sanchez, finding that the option agreement was valid and binding once Sanchez accepted the offer to purchase before Rigos could withdraw her offer.
The document summarizes a court case between Nicolas Sanchez and Severina Rigos regarding an option to purchase land. It describes how Sanchez and Rigos signed an agreement giving Sanchez two years to purchase land from Rigos for 1,510 pesos. Sanchez attempted to exercise this option multiple times within the period but Rigos rejected the payments. Sanchez then deposited the funds with the court and sued Rigos for specific performance. The court ruled in favor of Sanchez, finding that the option agreement was valid and binding once Sanchez accepted the offer to purchase before Rigos could withdraw her offer.
The document summarizes a court case between Nicolas Sanchez and Severina Rigos regarding an option to purchase land. It describes how Sanchez and Rigos signed an agreement giving Sanchez two years to purchase land from Rigos for 1,510 pesos. Sanchez attempted to exercise this option multiple times within the period but Rigos rejected the payments. Sanchez then deposited the funds with the court and sued Rigos for specific performance. The court ruled in favor of Sanchez, finding that the option agreement was valid and binding once Sanchez accepted the offer to purchase before Rigos could withdraw her offer.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
NICOLAS SANCHEZ v.
SEVERINA RIGOS, GR No. L-25494 FACTS:
On April 3, 1961, plaintiff Nicolas Sanchez and defendant Severina
Rigos executed an instrument entitled "Option to Purchase," whereby Mrs. Rigos "agreed, promised and committed ... to sell" to Sanchez the sum of P1,510.00, a parcel of land within two (2) years from said date with the understanding that said option shall be deemed "terminated and elapsed," if "Sanchez shall fail to exercise his right to buy the property" within the stipulated period. Inasmuch as several tenders of payment of the sum of Pl,510.00, made by Sanchez within said period, were rejected by Mrs. Rigos, on March 12, 1963, the former deposited said amount with the CFI of Nueva Ecija and commenced against the latter the present action, for specific performance and damages. The defendant alleged as a special defense, that the contract between the parties "is a unilateral promise to sell, and the same being unsupported by any valuable consideration, by force of the New Civil Code, is null and void". The lower court rendered judgment ordering Mrs. Rigos to accept the sum judicially consigned by him and to execute, in his favor, the requisite deed of conveyance.
Hence, this appeal by Mrs. Rigos.
ISSUE:
Whether Rigos is bound by Sanchez’ acceptance even though the option
is not supported by a separate consideration
HELD:
Yes. The court ruled that the option did not impose upon plaintiff the obligation to purchase defendant's property. The instrument executed is not a "contract to buy and sell." It merely granted plaintiff an "option" to buy.
Article 1479 must be read in relation to Article 1354. Article 1354 applies to contracts in general, whereas the second paragraph of Article 1479 refers to "sales" in particular, and, more specifically, to "an accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell." In other words, Article 1479 is controlling in the case at bar.
Since there may be no valid contract without a cause or consideration, the
promisor is not bound by his promise and may, accordingly, withdraw it. Pending notice of its withdrawal, his accepted promise partakes, however, of the nature of an offer to sell which, if accepted, results in a perfected contract of sale.
In the present case the trial court found that the "Plaintiff (Nicolas Sanchez) had offered the sum of Pl,510.00 before any withdrawal from the contract has been made by the Defendant (Severina Rigos)." Since Rigos' offer sell was accepted by Sanchez, before she could withdraw her offer, a bilateral reciprocal contract — to sell and to buy — was generated.
Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., Petitioner, Philippine Realty Corporation, Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation and Standard Realty CORPORATION, Respondents
