Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 606 views

    Case 12 Ang Yu Asuncion Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous MhXTwMP2
    The plaintiffs filed a complaint for specific performance to compel the defendants to sell them residential and commercial properties that the plaintiffs had leased from the defendants since 1935. The trial court found that there was no perfected contract of sale between the parties. However, it granted the plaintiffs the right of first refusal if the defendants offered the property for sale at P11 million or below in the future. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court then held that the right of first refusal did not constitute a perfected contract of sale under the Civil Code and that the proper action for its violation would be for damages, not a writ of execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 12 Ang Yu Asuncion Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous MhXTwMP2
    606 views1 page
    The plaintiffs filed a complaint for specific performance to compel the defendants to sell them residential and commercial properties that the plaintiffs had leased from the defendants since 1935. The trial court found that there was no perfected contract of sale between the parties. However, it granted the plaintiffs the right of first refusal if the defendants offered the property for sale at P11 million or below in the future. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court then held that the right of first refusal did not constitute a perfected contract of sale under the Civil Code and that the proper action for its violation would be for damages, not a writ of execution.

    Original Description:

    7yifvl

    Original Title

    Case 12 Ang Yu Asuncion vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiffs filed a complaint for specific performance to compel the defendants to sell them residential and commercial properties that the plaintiffs had leased from the defendants since 1935. The trial court found that there was no perfected contract of sale between the parties. However, it granted the plaintiffs the right of first refusal if the defendants offered the property for sale at P11 million or below in the future. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court then held that the right of first refusal did not constitute a perfected contract of sale under the Civil Code and that the proper action for its violation would be for damages, not a writ of execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    606 views1 page

    Case 12 Ang Yu Asuncion Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous MhXTwMP2
    The plaintiffs filed a complaint for specific performance to compel the defendants to sell them residential and commercial properties that the plaintiffs had leased from the defendants since 1935. The trial court found that there was no perfected contract of sale between the parties. However, it granted the plaintiffs the right of first refusal if the defendants offered the property for sale at P11 million or below in the future. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court then held that the right of first refusal did not constitute a perfected contract of sale under the Civil Code and that the proper action for its violation would be for damages, not a writ of execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    ANG YU ASUNCION ET AL. VS.

    COURT OF APPEALS

    G.R. No. 109125 283 SCRA 602

    December 2, 1994

    FACTS:

    On July 29, 1987 a Complaint for Specific Performance was filed by Ang Yu Asuncion and Keh
    Tiong, et al., against Bobby Cu Unjieng, Rose Cu Unjieng and Jose Tan before the Regional Trial Court,
    alleging that plaintiffs are tenants or lessees of residential and commercial spaces owned by defendants
    in Binondo, Manila; that they have occupied said spaces since 1935 and have been religiously paying the
    rental and complying with all the conditions of the lease contract.

    On several occasions before October 9, 1986, defendants informed plaintiffs that they are
    offering to sell the premises and are giving them priority to acquire the same. During the negotiations,
    Bobby Cu Unjieng offered a price of P6-million while plaintiffs made a counter offer of P5-million.

    Plaintiffs thereafter asked the defendants to put their offer in writing to which request defendants
    acceded. In reply to defendant's letter, plaintiffs wrote them on October 24, 1986 asking that they specify
    the terms and conditions of the offer to sell. However, plaintiffs did not receive any reply, so they sent
    another letter dated January 28, 1987 with the same request. Since defendants failed to specify the terms
    and conditions of the offer to sell and because of information received that defendants were about to sell
    the property, plaintiffs were compelled to file the complaint to compel defendants to sell the property to
    them.

    The trial court found that defendants' offer to sell was never accepted by the plaintiffs for the
    reason that the parties did not agree upon the terms and conditions of the proposed sale, hence, there
    was no contract of sale at all. Nonetheless, the lower court ruled that should the defendants subsequently
    offer their property for sale at a price of P11-million or below, plaintiffs will have the right of first refusal.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Trial Court.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the contract of sale is perfected by the grant of a Right of First Refusal.

    HELD:

    Right of first refusal is not a perfected contract of sale under Article 1458 of the Civil Code.

    In the law on sales, the so-called "right of first refusal" is an innovative juridical relation. The right
    of first refusal cannot be brought within the purview of an option under the second paragraph of Article
    1479,, or possibly of an offer under Article 1319 of the same Code. An option or an offer would require,
    among other things, a clear certainty on both the object and the cause or consideration of the envisioned
    contract. In a right of first refusal, while the object might be made determinate, the exercise of the right,
    however, would be dependent not only on the grantor's eventual intention to enter into a binding juridical
    relation with another but also on terms, including the price, that obviously are yet to be later firmed up.

    The proper action for violation of the right of first refysal is to file an action for damages and NOT
    writ of execution.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy