Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    G.R. No. 109125 Asuncion vs. CA December 2, 1994

    Uploaded by

    FCM DHSVUSOL
    In the case of Asuncion vs. CA, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no binding contract of sale between the plaintiffs and defendants, as the essential elements of a contract were not met. The plaintiffs were granted a right of first refusal but could not enforce it through a writ of execution since no sale was perfected. The court affirmed that Buen Realty, the new owner, was not bound by the previous proceedings and could not be subjected to the writ of execution.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 109125 Asuncion vs. CA December 2, 1994

    Uploaded by

    FCM DHSVUSOL
    1 views1 page
    In the case of Asuncion vs. CA, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no binding contract of sale between the plaintiffs and defendants, as the essential elements of a contract were not met. The plaintiffs were granted a right of first refusal but could not enforce it through a writ of execution since no sale was perfected. The court affirmed that Buen Realty, the new owner, was not bound by the previous proceedings and could not be subjected to the writ of execution.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    In the case of Asuncion vs. CA, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no binding contract of sale between the plaintiffs and defendants, as the essential elements of a contract were not met. The plaintiffs were granted a right of first refusal but could not enforce it through a writ of execution since no sale was perfected. The court affirmed that Buen Realty, the new owner, was not bound by the previous proceedings and could not be subjected to the writ of execution.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 109125 Asuncion vs. CA December 2, 1994

    Uploaded by

    FCM DHSVUSOL
    In the case of Asuncion vs. CA, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no binding contract of sale between the plaintiffs and defendants, as the essential elements of a contract were not met. The plaintiffs were granted a right of first refusal but could not enforce it through a writ of execution since no sale was perfected. The court affirmed that Buen Realty, the new owner, was not bound by the previous proceedings and could not be subjected to the 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

    G.R. No. 109125 Asuncion vs.

    CA December 2, 1994

    FACTS:

    Plaintiff Asuncion et al are tenants of commercial and residential spaces owned by the defendant in
    Binondo, Manila. They have occupied these spaces since 1935 and have been compliant to their lease
    contract. Sometime in 1986, defendant informed plaintiffs that they are offering to sell the premises for
    6M, and plaintiffs counter offered for 5M. Plaintiffs requested that defendant put their offer in writing
    which they acceded to. However, defendants did not comply, which compelled plaintiffs to file a
    complaint to compel defendants to sell the property to them.

    The trial court found that the defendants offer to sell was never accepted by the plaintiffs as they did not
    agree upon the terms and conditions of the sale. 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. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals
    held that there was no meeting of the minds on the sale. The case was brought to the Supreme Court.

    Pending consideration of the SC, the defendants executed a Deed of Sale transferring property to Buen
    Realty and Development Corp for 15M. TCT is now in the name of petitioner Buen Realty Development
    Corporation. Petitioner now demanded that the lessees vacate the premises executed by the appellate
    court. Appellate court declared the execution orders as without force and effect.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Buen Realty can be held bound by the writ of execution by virtue of notice of lis pendens

    RULING:

    The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the appellate court.

    An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do. The obligation is constituted upon the
    concurrence of the essential elements thereof (1) juridical tie (2) object or the prestation (3) subject.
    Further, a contract undergoes various stages including negotiation, perfection, and consummation. Until
    the contract is perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of obligation, serve as a binding juridical
    relation. A contract is perfected when a person, called the seller, obligates himself, for a price certain, to
    deliver and to transfer ownership of a thing or right to another, called the buyer, over which the latter
    agrees.

    In the instant case, the plaintiff was merely accorded a “right of first refusal”. Petitioners are aggrieved
    by failure of respondents to honor the right of first refusal, remedy is not a writ of execution on the
    judgment, since there is none to execute. An action for damages ina proper forum is the apt remedy.

    BRDC cannot be held bound to proceedings of prior civil case and cannot be subject to 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