Estado de Derecho y Decisiones JudicialesDescripción completa
Corpo Case
Full description
PNR v IAC
Pleadings
Credit Transaction
Case Digest
Civil Procedure case digestFull description
Bert Osmena v CA case digestFull description
123
digest
digestFull description
MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORPORATION AND MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MR. JOSE P. MARCELO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (TENTH DIVISION) AND CEFERINA ARGALLONJOCSON ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND MR. MARCELINO JOCSON, respondents. June 9, 1997 Facts: Private respondent filed an action for reconveyance against petitioners Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation (MCFC) and Marcelo Steel Corporation (MSC). The trial court ruled in favor her and ordered the petitioners to reconvey to her all the rights and interest on the disputed land. Petitioner then filed an appeal to the CA. The CA then affirmed in toto the questioned decision. Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE DECISION MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT. Ruling: Yes. The basis of the CA decision was a letter which was supposed to be a perfected agreement between the parties but the SC ruled otherwise. The letter was obviously far from the requisite offer or acceptance contemplated by Article 1319 of the Civil Code.An offer must be clear and definite, while an acceptance must be unconditional and unbounded, in order that their concurrence can give rise to a perfected contract. Wherefore, the questioned decision of the CA is SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for the determination of the balance of the purchase price upon which, upon its determination shall be paid by private respondent.
