CASIANO V. CA WILLS AND SUCCESSION FULL TEXT REVOCATION
Jovan Land v. CA & Eugenio Quesada, Inc.
Characteristics
Who:
1. Jovan Land – is a corporation engaged in the real estate business. 2. Joseph Sy – President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Jovan Land. 3. Eugenio Quesada – an owner of the Q Building located on an 801 sq. m. lot at the c orner of Mayhaligue Street and Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila. What:
1. Mayhaligue Property Property of Eugenio Quesada
Facts:
1. Joseph Sy through his co-petitioner Consolacion P. Medoza, learned that Quesada is selling his Mayhaligue Property; 2. Sy sent Quesada an offer of P10.25m – NOT accepted by Conrado Quesada (General Manager); 3. 2nd offer – same price but he w ill shoulder the documentary stamp tax, transfer tax, r egistration fees and notarial charges and a che ck for one million (1M) pesos drawn against the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank as earnest money – Rejected by Co nrado Quesada; 4. 3rd offer – for P12m, similar check for 1M as earnest money; 5. Annotated on the 3 rd offer was the phrase “Received original, 9-4-89” beside which appears the signature of Conrado Quesada; 6. Petitioner believes that there already exists a valid, perfected agreement to sell the Mayhaligue Property; 7. Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and collection of sum of money with damages. RTC
1. 2. 3. 4.
Ruled in favor of Eugenio Quesada; That both parties have not gone through the negotiation stage; There is no contract whatsoever that was perfected; The complaint was dismissed for lack of cause of action
CA
1. Upheld the decision of the Trial Court. SC
1. CA and RTC ruling were agreed; 2. That in order to have a valid contract of sale, all the essential elements must exist: Consent, Object, Price or consideration; 3. That there was no consent in this case at all since the annotation does not mean that Eugenio Quesada nor Conrado Quesada gave consent and accepted the offer; 4. Neither the check was received on the said date;
/YDR
5. That the receipt reveals that the same can neither be regarded as a contract of sale nor a promise to sell; 6. There is neither written nor implied acce ptance of the offer; 7. That it is merely a memorandum of receipt by the former to the latter; 8. That the element of consent is lacking and therefore there is neither valid nor enforce able contract; 9. Oft-repeated doctrine; 10. Petition is denied.
