[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
190 views2 pages

6 Ang Yu Asuncion vs. Court of Appeals

This case involves a dispute over property that was originally rented by petitioners from the Cu Unjiengs since 1935. The Cu Unjiengs offered to sell the property to petitioners for P6M, and petitioners counter-offered P5M, which was accepted. However, the terms and conditions of the sale were never specified. Petitioners filed for specific performance, but the trial court ruled no contract existed. The appellate court affirmed but granted petitioners a right of first refusal if the property was sold for less than P11M. The property was later sold to Buen Realty for P15M without allowing petitioners their right of first refusal. The Supreme Court then ordered the property be transferred to

Uploaded by

Jem
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
190 views2 pages

6 Ang Yu Asuncion vs. Court of Appeals

This case involves a dispute over property that was originally rented by petitioners from the Cu Unjiengs since 1935. The Cu Unjiengs offered to sell the property to petitioners for P6M, and petitioners counter-offered P5M, which was accepted. However, the terms and conditions of the sale were never specified. Petitioners filed for specific performance, but the trial court ruled no contract existed. The appellate court affirmed but granted petitioners a right of first refusal if the property was sold for less than P11M. The property was later sold to Buen Realty for P15M without allowing petitioners their right of first refusal. The Supreme Court then ordered the property be transferred to

Uploaded by

Jem
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Ang Yu Asuncion vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 109125. December 2, 1994
VITUG, J.:
Facts:
Ang Yu Asuncion, Arthur Go, and Keh Tong, petitioners, were tenants of residential and
commercial spaces of by Bobby Cu Unjieng, Rose u Unjieng and Jose Tan since 1935. Cu
Unjiengs informed petitioners that they are offering to sell the property for P6M but petitioners
made a counter-offer of P5M which the former acceded. However, the Cu Unjiengs failed to
specify the terms and conditions of the sale. Petitioners filed for specific performance but Cu
Unjiengs filed a summary judgment which was granted by the trial court holding that the offer to
sell was never accepted that the parties did not agree upon the terms and conditions of the
proposed sale, hence, no contract of sale at all. The trial courts also provide that the right of first
refusal shall be granted to petitioners if the sale of the property is not higher than P11M.. Upon
appeal, CA affirmed but modified that the right of first refusal shall be granted even if the
property is sold higher than P11M, which became final and executory upon denial of petition for
review of SC. While the case was pending, the property was sold to Buen Realty and
Development Corporation, respondent, for the amount of P15M without the exercise of right of
refusal by petitioners. On August 30, 1991, the SC ordered the execution of necessary Deed of
Sale in favor of petitioners and on Sept 27, 1991, ordered the cancellation of TCT in favor of
respondent. Thus, this petition for review of the decision of CA setting aside and declaring
without force and effect the orders of execution of the trial court, dated 30 August 1991 and 27
September 1991.
Issue:
Whether Buen Realty can be held bound by the writ of execution by virtue of the notice
of lis pendens, carried over on TCT No. 195816 issued in the name of Buen Realty, at the time of
the latter’s purchase of the property on 15 November 1991 from the Cu Unjiengs?
Rule of law:
Article 1479
Application:
Even on the premise that such right of first refusal has been decreed under a final
judgment, like here, its breach cannot justify correspondingly an issuance of a writ of execution
under a judgment that merely recognizes its existence, nor would it sanction an action for
specific performance without thereby negating the indispensable element of consensuality in the
perfection of contracts. It is not to say, however, that the right of first refusal would be
inconsequential for, such as already intimated above, an unjustified disregard thereof, given, for
instance, the circumstances expressed in Article 19 of the Civil Code, can warrant a recovery for
damages. The final judgment in Civil Case No. 87-41058, it must be stressed, has merely
accorded a “right of first refusal” in favor of petitioners. The consequence of such a declaration
entails no more than what has heretofore been said. In fine, if, as it is here so conveyed to us,
petitioners are aggrieved by the failure of private respondents to honor the right of first refusal,
the remedy is not a writ of execution on the judgment, since there is none to execute, but an
action for damages in a proper forum for the purpose.
Conclusion:
WHEREFORE, we UPHOLD the Court of Appeals in ultimately setting aside the
questioned Orders, dated 30 August 1991 and 27 September 1991, of the court a quo.

You might also like