ANTONIO S. LIM, JR., represented by his attorney-in-fact, PAZ S. LIM, petitioner vs. VICTOR K. SAN and ELINDO LO, respondents.
D E C I S I O NYNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision[1] and the resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61948 promulgated on May 7, 2003 and August 13, 2003, respectively, which affirmed the July 27, 2003 decision [3] of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 12 dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner.
Petitioner Antonio S. Lim, Jr., represented by his mother, Paz S. Lim, as attorney-in-fact, filed a complaint [4] before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City seeking the annulment of a Deed of Absolute Sale[5] involving a parcel of land purportedly executed by Paz S. Lim in favor of her brother, respondent Victor K. San.
In the second amended complaint dated May 27, 1993, petitioner alleged the following:
x x x x x x x x x
4. That plaintiff is an owner of a parcel of land situated at Bajada, Davao City, containing an area of 1,763 square meters, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-11072 of the Registry of Deeds of Davao City, x x x;
4.A. That constructed on the afore-cited parcel of land is a fourteen (14) doors commercial building, and that defendant is paying an annual lease of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS to the herein plaintiff.
5. On May 29, 1991, the herein defendant taking undue advantage of the depressed mental state of plaintiff’s Attorney-in-Fact, brought about by the demise of her late husband, Dr. Antonio A. Lim Sr., caused some papers for her to sign, which later turn (sic) out to be an Absolute Deed of Sale, x x x;
6. That the signature of the Attorney-in-Fact in the aforecited Deed of Absolute Sale was obtained through fraud and trickery employed by the
herein defendant and that she never appeared before the Notary Public, who notarized the said deed;
7. That no consideration was ever paid, much less received by the plaintiff or by his Attorney-in-Fact. Simply put, the Deed of Absolute Sale was void ab initio for “lack of consideration” and for “lack of a valid consent”;
8. After the signing of the aforecited Deed of Sale with its attendant legal flaws and infirmities, plaintiff’s Title was transferred in the name of the defendant, Victor K. San, x x x;
9. Knowing that he is holding an infirmed Title, defendant, Victor K. San is now in the process of selling the aforecited property including the commercial building erected thereon to any third person; and that the defendant had already caused the cancellation of the Mother Title No. T-165010 by subdividing the same into eight (8) lots with eight (8) different titles, as follows:
TCT NO. T-191255, T-191256, T-191257, T-191258, T-191259, T-191260, T-191261, T-191262,
x x x x x x x x x.[6]
Respondent Victor K. San denied all the allegations of the petitioner. He alleged that the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-165010 of the Registry of Deeds of Davao City and registered in his name was validly and regularly issued. He further claimed that he does not have any lease contract with the petitioner with respect to the contested property and does not pay any monthly rental over the same. Moreover, respondent claimed that there was full payment of the consideration of P264,450.00 for the subject property.
Respondent Elindo Lo was impleaded as a co-defendant on account of his purchase of one lot covered by TCT No. T-191262,[7]notwithstanding the Notice of Adverse Claim and Lis Pendens annotated on the title of the said parcel of land.
On July 27, 1998, after trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court of Davao City rendered a decision dismissing the complaint. [8]
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the trial court in toto. Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration[9]was denied in a Resolution[10] dated August 13, 2003.
Hence the present petition based on the following grounds:
a) that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment declaring that the petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the signature of his attorney-in-fact was obtained through fraud and trickery and that no consideration was ever paid.
b) that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the medical certificates issued by foreign medical institutions to prove Paz S. Lim (sic) severe mental state of depression cannot be given evidentiary weight considering that its due execution and authenticity were not properly established.[11]
Petitioner contends that the deed of sale should be declared void because his consent to the same was vitiated by intimidation and that no consideration was paid for the subject property. Respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the parties to the deed of sale validly entered into the same; that Paz S. Lim freely and voluntarily gave her consent to the sale; and that she received the consideration agreed upon by the parties.
After a careful review of the records of this case, we find no cogent reason to deviate from the rulings of the court a quo and the Court of Appeals.
A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service.[12] It has three essential elements, or those without which there can be no contract – consent, subject matter and cause.[13] A knowledge of these essential elements is material because the perfection stage or the birth of the contract only occurs when the parties to a contract agree upon the essential elements of the same.[14]
A contract of sale is consensual, [15] as such it is perfected by mere consent.[16] Consent is essential for the existence of a contract, and where it is wanting, the contract is non-existent.[17] Consent in contracts presupposes the following requisites: (1) it should be intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (2) it should be free; and (3) it should be spontaneous. Intelligence in consent is vitiated by error; freedom by violence,
intimidation or undue influence; and spontaneity by fraud. [18] Thus, a contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud is voidable. [19]
Contrary to the allegations of the petitioner that the consent of his attorney-in-fact to the deed of sale was vitiated, a perusal of the records of this case showed that the petitioner failed to establish that violence, intimidation and undue influence vitiated the consent of Paz S. Lim to the deed of sale pertaining to the subject property. In determining whether consent is vitiated by the circumstances provided for in Article 1330 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, courts are given a wide latitude in weighing the facts or circumstances in a given case and in deciding in favor of what they believe to have actually occurred, considering the age, physical infirmity, intelligence, relationship and the conduct of the parties at the time of making the contract and subsequent thereto, irrespective of whether the contract is in a public or private writing.[20]
While it is true that upon the death of her husband, Dr. Antonio T. Lim, Sr., on May 18, 1990,[21] Paz S. Lim returned to the Philippines and subsequently stayed at the house of the respondent, such fact per se is not sufficient to establish that the latter employed intimidation, violence or undue influence upon the former. Defect or lack of valid consent, in order to make the contract voidable, must be established by full, clear and convincing evidence, and not merely by a preponderance thereof.[22] Petitioner’s mere allegations that respondent threatened his mother with harm if she will not sign the contract failed to measure up to the yardstick of evidence required, not only to prove vitiation of consent, but also to overturn the presumption that private transactions have been fair and regular.[23]
Paz S. Lim’s behavior belies the allegation that respondent threatened to harm her. The following testimony is enlightening:
Q You claim that your brother, the defendant Victor K. San threatened to kill you if you will not cooperate you recall having mentioned that on direct?
A When?
Q Is it not that you mentioned on the direct that you were threatened by your brother Victor San?
A Yes, many times he will not let me leave.
Q That was at the time you were then staying with your brother, the defendant in this case?
A Yes, sir.
Q When did you leave your brother in his residence?
A One day when he was out I think in 1991, I sneaked out of the gate and I saw my cousin Lucila, she said that we live near each other and that I did not know that from then on my relatives just lived across the fence.
Q Let me be clarified, you left your brother’s house in late 1991?
A Yes, sir.
Q After leaving your brother’s house late in 1991, where did you live?
A With my nephew William.
Q What is the complete name of this William?
A William Tom.
Q Up to the present you are staying with him?
A Yes, Marlene Babao was living downstairs.
Q After leaving your brother’s house, did you ever report this incident wherein you were threatened by your brother to the police?
A No, I just told my cousin and my nephew, I am afraid to stay there longer.
Q Did you ever file a criminal case against your brother for grave threats, he having allegedly threatened to kill you?
A I am the big sister, how can I do that to my own brother, I am a Christian.
Q In other words, you did not report this treatment by your brother to the police nor filed any criminal case against him in Court even up to the present?
A Yes, sir.[24]
Well-settled is the rule that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh or the scant or full realization of an oath – all of which are useful for an accurate determination of a witness’ honesty and sincerity.[25]
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 7, 2003 and the Resolution dated August 13, 2003 of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of Civil Case No. 21,924-93 before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 12, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing and Carpio,
JJ., concur.Azcuna, J., on leave.
G.R. No. 128120 October 20, 2004
SWEDISH MATCH, AB, JUAN ENRIQUEZ, RENE DIZON, FRANCISCO RAPACON, FIEL SANTOS, BETH FLORES, LAMBRTO DE LA EVA, GLORIA REYES, RODRIGO ORTIZ, NICANOR ESCALANTE, PETER HODGSON, SAMUEL PARTOSA, HERMINDA ASUNCION, JUANITO HERRERA, JACOBUS NICOLAAS, JOSEPH PEKELHARING (now Representing himself without court sanction as "JOOST PEKELHARING)," MASSIMO ROSSI and ED ENRIQUEZ, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, ALS MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANTONIO K. LITONJUA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
Petitioners seek a reversal of the twin Orders1 of the Court of Appeals dated 15 November 19962 and 31 January 1997,3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 35886, entitled "ALS Management et al., v. Swedish Match, AB et al." The appellate court overturned the trial court’s Order4 dismissing the respondents’ complaint for specific performance and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Swedish Match AB (hereinafter SMAB) is a corporation organized under the laws of Sweden not doing business in the Philippines. SMAB, however, had three subsidiary corporations in the Philippines, all organized under Philippine laws, to wit: Phimco Industries, Inc. (Phimco), Provident Tree Farms, Inc., and OTT/Louie (Phils.), Inc.
Sometime in 1988, STORA, the then parent company of SMAB, decided to sell SMAB of Sweden and the latter’s worldwide match, lighter and shaving products operation to Eemland Management Services, now known as Swedish Match NV of Netherlands, (SMNV), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Netherlands. STORA, however, retained for itself the packaging business.
SMNV initiated steps to sell the worldwide match and lighter businesses while retaining for itself the shaving business. SMNV adopted a two-pronged strategy, the first being to sell its shares in Phimco Industries, Inc. and a match company in Brazil, which proposed sale would stave-off defaults in the loan covenants of SMNV with its syndicate of lenders. The other move was to sell at once or in one package all the SMNV companies worldwide which were engaged in match and lighter operations thru a global deal (hereinafter, global deal).
Ed Enriquez (Enriquez), Vice-President of Swedish Match Sociedad Anonimas (SMSA)—the management company of the Swedish Match group—was commissioned and granted full powers to negotiate by SMNV, with the
resulting transaction, however, made subject to final approval by the board. Enriquez was held under strict instructions that the sale of Phimco shares should be executed on or before 30 June 1990, in view of the tight loan covenants of SMNV. Enriquez came to the Philippines in November 1989 and informed the Philippine financial and business circles that the Phimco shares were for sale.
Several interested parties tendered offers to acquire the Phimco shares, among whom were the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System, herein respondent ALS Management & Development Corporation and respondent Antonio Litonjua (Litonjua), the president and general manager of ALS.
In his letter dated 3 November 1989, Litonjua submitted to SMAB a firm offer to buy all of the latter’s shares in Phimco and all of Phimco’s shares in Provident Tree Farm, Inc. and OTT/Louie (Phils.), Inc. for the sum ofP750,000,000.00.5
Through its Chief Executive Officer, Massimo Rossi (Rossi), SMAB, in its letter dated 1 December 1989, thanked respondents for their interest in the Phimco shares. Rossi informed respondents that their price offer was below their expectations but urged them to undertake a comprehensive review and analysis of the value and profit potentials of the Phimco shares, with the assurance that respondents would enjoy a certain priority although several parties had indicated their interest to buy the shares.6
Thereafter, an exchange of correspondence ensued between petitioners and respondents regarding the projected sale of the Phimco shares. In his letter dated 21 May 1990, Litonjua offered to buy the disputed shares, excluding the lighter division for US$30.6 million, which per another letter of the same date was increased to US$36 million.7 Litonjua stressed that the bid amount could be adjusted subject to availability of additional information and audit verification of the company finances.
Responding to Litonjua’s offer, Rossi sent his letter dated 11 June 1990, informing the former that ALS should undertake a due diligence process or pre-acquisition audit and review of the draft contract for the Match and Forestry activities of Phimco at ALS’ convenience. However, Rossi made it clear that at the completion of the due diligence process, ALS should submit its final offer in US dollar terms not later than 30 June 1990, for the shares of SMAB corresponding to ninety-six percent (96%) of the Match and Forestry activities of Phimco. Rossi added that in case the "global deal" presently under negotiation for the Swedish Match Lights Group would materialize, SMAB would reimburse up to US$20,000.00 of ALS’ costs related to the due diligence process.8
Litonjua in a letter dated 18 June 1990, expressed disappointment at the apparent change in SMAB’s approach to the bidding process. He pointed out that in their 4 June 1990 meeting, he was advised that one final bidder would be selected from among the four contending groups as of that date and that
the decision would be made by 6 June 1990. He criticized SMAB’s decision to accept a new bidder who was not among those who participated in the 25 May 1990 bidding. He informed Rossi that it may not be possible for them to submit their final bid on 30 June 1990, citing the advice to him of the auditing firm that the financial statements would not be completed until the end of July. Litonjua added that he would indicate in their final offer more specific details of the payment mechanics and consider the possibility of signing a conditional sale at that time.9
Two days prior to the deadline for submission of the final bid, Litonjua again advised Rossi that they would be unable to submit the final offer by 30 June 1990, considering that the acquisition audit of Phimco and the review of the draft agreements had not yet been completed. He said, however, that they would be able to finalize their bid on 17 July 1990 and that in case their bid would turn out better than any other proponent, they would remit payment within ten (10) days from the execution of the contracts.10
Enriquez sent notice to Litonjua that they would be constrained to entertain bids from other parties in view of Litonjua’s failure to make a firm commitment for the shares of Swedish Match in Phimco by 30 June 1990.11
In a letter dated 3 July 1990, Rossi informed Litonjua that on 2 July 1990, they signed a conditional contract with a local group for the disposal of Phimco. He told Litonjua that his bid would no longer be considered unless the local group would fail to consummate the transaction on or before 15 September1990.12
Apparently irked by SMAB’s decision to junk his bid, Litonjua promptly responded by letter dated 4 July 1990. Contrary to his prior manifestations, he asserted that, for all intents and purposes, the US$36 million bid which he submitted on 21 May 1990 was their final bid based on the financial statements for the year 1989. He pointed out that they submitted the best bid and they were already finalizing the terms of the sale. He stressed that they were firmly committed to their bid of US$36 million and if ever there would be adjustments in the bid amount, the adjustments were brought about by SMAB’s subsequent disclosures and validated accounts, such as the aspect that only ninety-six percent (96%) of Phimco shares was actually being sold and not one-hundred percent (100%).13
More than two months from receipt of Litonjua’s last letter, Enriquez sent a fax communication to the former, advising him that the proposed sale of SMAB’s shares in Phimco with local buyers did not materialize. Enriquez then invited Litonjua to resume negotiations with SMAB for the sale of Phimco shares. He indicated that SMAB would be prepared to negotiate with ALS on an exclusive basis for a period of fifteen (15) days from 26 September 1990 subject to the terms contained in the letter. Additionally, Enriquez clarified that if the sale would not be completed at the end of the fifteen (15)-day period, SMAB would enter into negotiations with other buyers.14
Shortly thereafter, Litonjua sent a letter expressing his objections to the totally new set of terms and conditions for the sale of the Phimco shares. He
emphasized that the new offer constituted an attempt to reopen the already perfected contract of sale of the shares in his favor. He intimated that he could not accept the new terms and conditions contained therein.15
On 14 December 1990, respondents, as plaintiffs, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig a complaint for specific performance with damages, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, against defendants, now petitioners. The individual defendants were sued in their respective capacities as officers of the corporations or entities involved in the aborted transaction.
Aside from the averments related to their principal cause of action for specific performance, respondents alleged that the Phimco management, in utter bad faith, induced SMAB to violate its contract with respondents. They contended that the Phimco management took an interest in acquiring for itself the Phimco shares and that petitioners conspired to thwart the closing of such sale by interposing various obstacles to the completion of the acquisition audit.16 Respondents claimed that the Phimco management maliciously and deliberately delayed the delivery of documents to Laya Manabat Salgado & Co. which prevented them from completing the acquisition audit in time for the deadline on 30 June 1990 set by petitioners.17 Respondents added that SMAB’s refusal to consummate the perfected sale of the Phimco shares amounted to an abuse of right and constituted conduct which is contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy.18
Respondents prayed that petitioners be enjoined from selling or transferring the Phimco shares, or otherwise implementing the sale or transfer thereof, in favor of any person or entity other than respondents, and that any such sale to third parties be annulled and set aside. Respondents also asked that petitioners be ordered to execute all documents or instruments and perform all acts necessary to consummate the sales agreement in their favor.
Traversing the complaint, petitioners alleged that respondents have no cause of action, contending that no perfected contract, whether verbal or written, existed between them. Petitioners added that respondents’ cause of action, if any, was barred by the Statute of Frauds since there was no written instrument or document evidencing the alleged sale of the Phimco shares to respondents.
Petitioners filed a motion for a preliminary hearing of their defense of bar by the Statute of Frauds, which the trial court granted. Both parties agreed to adopt as their evidence in support of or against the motion to dismiss, as the case may be, the evidence which they adduced in support of their respective positions on the writ of preliminary injunction incident.
In its Order dated 17 April 1991, the RTC dismissed respondents’ complaint.19 It ruled that there was no perfected contract of sale between petitioners and respondents. The court a quo said that the letter dated 11 June 1990, relied upon by respondents, showed that petitioners did not accept the bid offer of respondents as the letter was a mere invitation for
respondents to conduct a due diligence process or pre-acquisition audit of Phimco’s match and forestry operations to enable them to submit their final offer on 30 June 1990. Assuming that respondent’s bid was favored by an oral acceptance made in private by officers of SMAB, the trial court noted, such acceptance was merely preparatory to a formal acceptance by the SMAB—the acceptance that would eventually lead to the execution and signing of the contract of sale. Moreover, the court noted that respondents failed to submit their final bid on the deadline set by petitioners.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning the following errors:
A. THE TRIAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION WHEN IT ERRED PROCEDURALLY IN MOTU PROPIO (sic) DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR "LACK OF A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION" WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL AND ON THE MERE MOTION TO DISMISS.
B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IGNORING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS’ CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON TORT WHICH, HAVING BEEN SUFFICIENTLY PLEADED, INDEPENDENTLY WARRANTED A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL.
C. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IGNORING PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’ CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL WHICH, HAVING BEEN SUFFICIENTLY PLEADED, WARRANTED A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL, INDEPENDENTLY FOR THE OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION.
D. THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE ERRED IN FORSWEARING JUDICIAL OBJECTIVITY TO FAVOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES BY MAKING UNFOUNDED FINDINGS, ALL IN VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’ RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.20
After assessing the respective arguments of the parties, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. It ruled that the series of written communications between petitioners and respondents collectively constitute a sufficient memorandum of their agreement under Article 1403 of the Civil Code; thus, respondents’ complaint should not have been dismissed on the ground that it was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The appellate court opined that any document or writing, whether formal or informal, written either for the purpose of furnishing evidence of the contract or for another purpose which satisfies all the Statute’s requirements as to contents and signature would be
sufficient; and, that two or more writings properly connected could be considered together. The appellate court concluded that the letters exchanged by and between the parties, taken together, were sufficient to establish that an agreement to sell the disputed shares to respondents was reached.
The Court of Appeals clarified, however, that by reversing the appealed decision it was not thereby declaring that respondents are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in their complaint, but only that the case should not have
been dismissed on the ground of unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds. It ordered the remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider that the Statute of Frauds requires not just the existence of any note or memorandum but that such note or memorandum should evidence an agreement to sell; and, that in this case, there was no word, phrase, or statement in the letters exchanged between the two parties to show or even imply that an agreement had been reached for the sale of the shares to respondent.
Petitioners stress that respondent Litonjua made it clear in his letters that the quoted prices were merely tentative and still subject to further negotiations between him and the seller. They point out that there was no meeting of the minds on the essential terms and conditions of the sale because SMAB did not accept respondents’ offer that consideration would be paid in Philippine pesos. Moreover, Litonjua signified their inability to submit their final bid on 30 June 1990, at the same time stating that the broad terms and conditions described in their meeting were inadequate for them to make a response at that time so much so that he would have to await the corresponding specifics. Petitioners argue that the foregoing circumstances prove that they failed to reach an agreement on the sale of the Phimco shares.
In their Comment, respondents maintain that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the Statute of Frauds does not apply to the instant case. Respondents assert that the sale of the subject shares to them was perfected as shown by the following circumstances, namely: petitioners assured them that should they increase their bid, the sale would be awarded to them and that they did in fact increase their previous bid of US$30.6 million to US$36 million; petitioners orally accepted their revised offer and the acceptance was relayed to them by Rene Dizon; petitioners directed them to proceed with the acquisition audit and to submit a comfort letter from the United Coconut Planters’ Bank (UCPB); petitioner corporation confirmed its previous verbal acceptance of their offer in a letter dated 11 June 1990; with the prior approval of petitioners, respondents engaged the services of Laya, Manabat, Salgado & Co., an independent auditing firm, to immediately proceed with the acquisition audit; and, petitioner corporation reiterated its commitment to be bound by the result of the acquisition audit and
promised to reimburse respondents’ cost to the extent of US$20,000.00. All these incidents, according to respondents, overwhelmingly prove that the contract of sale of the Phimco shares was perfected.
Further, respondents argued that there was partial performance of the perfected contract on their part. They alleged that with the prior approval of petitioners, they engaged the services of Laya, Manabat, Salgado & Co. to conduct the acquisition audit. They averred that petitioners agreed to be bound by the results of the audit and offered to reimburse the costs thereof to the extent of US$20,000.00. Respondents added that in compliance with their
obligations under the contract, they have submitted a comfort letter from UCPB to show petitioners that the bank was willing to finance the acquisition of the Phimco shares.21
The basic issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court’s decision dismissing the complaint for being unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds; and (2) whether there was a perfected contract of sale between petitioners and respondents with respect to the Phimco shares.
The Statute of Frauds embodied in Article 1403, paragraph (2), of the Civil Code22 requires certain contracts enumerated therein to be evidenced by some note or memorandum in order to be enforceable. The term "Statute of Frauds" is descriptive of statutes which require certain classes of contracts to be in writing. The Statute does not deprive the parties of the right to contract with respect to the matters therein involved, but merely regulates the formalities
of the contract necessary to render it enforceable.23 Evidence of the agreement cannot be received without the writing or a secondary evidence of its contents.
The Statute, however, simply provides the method by which the contracts enumerated therein may be proved but does not declare them invalid because they are not reduced to writing. By law, contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. However, when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable.24Consequently, the effect of non-compliance with the requirement of the Statute is simply that no action can be enforced unless the requirement is complied with.25 Clearly, the form required is for evidentiary purposes only. Hence, if the parties permit a contract to be proved, without any objection, it is then just as binding as if the Statute has been complied with.26
The purpose of the Statute is to prevent fraud and perjury in the enforcement of obligations depending for their evidence on the unassisted memory of witnesses, by requiring certain enumerated contracts and transactions to be evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged.27
However, for a note or memorandum to satisfy the Statute, it must be complete in itself and cannot rest partly in writing and partly in parol. The note or memorandum must contain the names of the parties, the terms and conditions of the contract, and a description of the property sufficient to render it capable of identification.28Such note or memorandum must contain the essential elements of the contract expressed with certainty that may be ascertained from the note or memorandum itself, or some other writing to which it refers or within which it is connected, without resorting to parol evidence.29
Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, the exchange of correspondence between the parties hardly constitutes the note or memorandum within the context of Article 1403 of the Civil Code. Rossi’s letter dated 11 June 1990, heavily relied upon by respondents, is not complete in itself. First, it does not indicate at what price the shares were being sold. In paragraph (5) of the letter, respondents were supposed to submit their final offer in U.S. dollar terms, at that after the completion of the due diligence process. The paragraph undoubtedly proves that there was as yet no definite agreement as to the price. Second, the letter does not state the mode of payment of the price. In fact, Litonjua was supposed to indicate in his final offer how and where payment for the shares was planned to be made.30
Evidently, the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint on the ground of unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds is warranted.31
Even if we were to consider the letters between the parties as a sufficient memorandum for purposes of taking the case out of the operation of the Statute the action for specific performance would still fail.
A contract is defined as a juridical convention manifested in legal form, by virtue of which one or more persons bind themselves in favor of another, or others, or reciprocally, to the fulfillment of a prestation to give, to do, or not to do.32 There can be no contract unless the following requisites concur: (a) consent of the contracting parties; (b) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (c) cause of the obligation which is established.33 Contracts are perfected by mere consent, which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract.34
Specifically, in the case of a contract of sale, required is the concurrence of three elements, to wit: (a) consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; (b) determinate subject matter, and (c) price certain in money or its equivalent.35 Such contract is born from the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price.36
In general, contracts undergo three distinct stages, to wit: negotiation; perfection or birth; and consummation. Negotiation begins from the time the prospective contracting parties manifest their interest in the contract and ends at the moment of agreement of the parties. Perfection or birth of the contract takes place when the parties agree upon the essential elements of the contract. Consummation occurs when the parties fulfill or perform the terms agreed upon in the contract, culminating in the extinguishment thereof.37
A negotiation is formally initiated by an offer. A perfected promise merely tends to insure and pave the way for the celebration of a future contract. An imperfect promise (policitacion), on the other hand, is a mere unaccepted offer.38 Public advertisements or solicitations and the like are ordinarily construed as mere invitations to make offers or only as proposals. At any time prior to the perfection of the contract, either negotiating party may stop the
negotiation.39 The offer, at this stage, may be withdrawn; the withdrawal is effective immediately after its manifestation, such as by its mailing and not necessarily when the offeree learns of the withdrawal.40
An offer would require, among other things, a clear certainty on both the object and the cause or consideration of the envisioned contract. Consent in a contract of sale should be manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer.41
Quite obviously, Litonjua’s letter dated 21 May 1990, proposing the acquisition of the Phimco shares for US$36 million was merely an offer. This offer, however, in Litonjua’s own words, "is understood to be subject to adjustment on the basis of an audit of the assets, liabilities and net worth of Phimco and its subsidiaries and on the final negotiation between ourselves."42
Was the offer certain enough to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds? Definitely not.
Litonjua repeatedly stressed in his letters that they would not be able to submit their final bid by 30 June 1990.43 With indubitable inconsistency, respondents later claimed that for all intents and purposes, the US$36 million was their final bid. If this were so, it would be inane for Litonjua to state, as he did, in his letter dated 28 June 1990 that they would be in a position to submit their final bid only on 17 July 1990. The lack of a definite offer on the part of respondents could not possibly serve as the basis of their claim that the sale of the Phimco shares in their favor was perfected, for one essential element of a contract of sale was obviously wanting—the price certain in money or its equivalent. The price must be certain, otherwise there is no true consent between the parties.44 There can be no sale without a price.45 Quite recently, this Court reiterated the long-standing doctrine that the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element before a valid and binding contract of sale can exist since the agreement on the manner of payment goes into the price such that a
disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price.46
Granting arguendo, that the amount of US$36 million was a definite offer, it would remain as a mere offer in the absence of evidence of its acceptance. To produce a contract, there must be acceptance, which may be express or implied, but it must not qualify the terms of the offer.47 The acceptance of an offer must be unqualified and absolute to perfect the contract.48 In other words, it must be identical in all respects with that of the offer so as to produce consent or meeting of the minds.49
Respondents’ attempt to prove the alleged verbal acceptance of their US$36 million bid becomes futile in the face of the overwhelming evidence on record that there was in the first place no meeting of the minds with respect to the
price. It is dramatically clear that the US$36 million was not the actual price agreed upon but merely a preliminary offer which was subject to adjustment after the conclusion of the audit of the company finances. Respondents’ failure to submit their final bid on the deadline set by petitioners prevented the perfection of the contract of sale. It was not perfected due to the absence of one essential element which was the price certain in money or its equivalent.
At any rate, from the procedural stand point, the continuing objections raised by petitioners to the admission of parol evidence50 on the alleged verbal acceptance of the offer rendered any evidence of acceptance inadmissible.
Respondents’ plea of partial performance should likewise fail. The acquisition audit and submission of a comfort letter, even if considered together, failed to prove the perfection of the contract. Quite the contrary, they indicated that the sale was far from concluded. Respondents conducted the audit as part of the due diligence process to help them arrive at and make their final offer. On the other hand, the submission of the comfort letter was merely a guarantee that respondents had the financial capacity to pay the price in the event that their bid was accepted by petitioners.
The Statute of Frauds is applicable only to contracts which are executory and not to those which have been consummated either totally or partially.51 If a contract has been totally or partially performed, the exclusion of parol evidence would promote fraud or bad faith, for it would enable the defendant to keep the benefits already derived by him from the transaction in litigation, and at the same time, evade the obligations, responsibilities or liabilities assumed or contracted by him thereby.52 This rule, however, is predicated on the fact of ratification of the contract within the meaning of Article 1405 of the Civil Code either (1) by failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or (2) by the acceptance of benefits under them. In the instant case, respondents failed to prove that there was partial performance of the contract within the purview of the Statute.
Respondents insist that even on the assumption that the Statute of Frauds is applicable in this case, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint altogether. They point out that the complaint presents several causes of action.
A close examination of the complaint reveals that it alleges two distinct causes of action, the first is for specific performance53 premised on the existence of the contract of sale, while the other is solely for damages, predicated on the purported dilatory maneuvers executed by the Phimco management.54
With respect to the first cause of action for specific performance, apart from petitioners’ alleged refusal to honor the contract of sale—which has never been perfected in the first place—respondents made a number of averments in their complaint all in support of said cause of action. Respondents
claimed that petitioners were guilty of promissory estoppel,55 warranty breaches56 and tortious conduct57 in refusing to honor the alleged contract of
sale. These averments are predicated on or at least interwoven with the existence or perfection of the contract of sale. As there was no such perfected contract, the trial court properly rejected the averments in conjunction with the dismissal of the complaint for specific performance.
However, respondents’ second cause of action due to the alleged malicious and deliberate delay of the Phimco management in the delivery of documents necessary for the completion of the audit on time, not being based on the existence of the contract of sale, could stand independently of the action for specific performance and should not be deemed barred by the dismissal of the cause of action predicated on the failed contract. If substantiated, this cause of action would entitle respondents to the recovery of damages against the officers of the corporation responsible for the acts complained of.
Thus, the Court cannot forthwith order dismissal of the complaint without affording respondents an opportunity to substantiate their allegations with respect to its cause of action for damages against the officers of Phimco based on the latter’s alleged self-serving dilatory maneuvers.
WHEREFORE, the petition is in part GRANTED. The appealed Decision is hereby MODIFIED insofar as it declared the agreement between the parties enforceable under the
Statute of Frauds. The complaint before the trial court is ordered DISMISSED insofar as the cause of action for specific
performance is concerned. The case is ordered REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings with respect to the cause of action for damages as above specified.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 166862 December 20, 2006
MANILA METAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, petitioner, REYNALDO C. TOLENTINO, intervenor, vs.PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondent,DMCI-PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC., intervenor.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. 46153 which affirmed the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 71, Pasig City, in Civil Case No. 58551, and its Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Manila Metal Container Corporation (MMCC).
The Antecedents
Petitioner was the owner of a 8,015 square meter parcel of land located in Mandaluyong (now a City), Metro Manila. The property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 332098 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal. To secure a P900,000.00 loan it had obtained from respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB), petitioner executed a real estate mortgage over the lot. Respondent PNB later granted petitioner a new credit accommodation of P1,000,000.00; and, on November 16, 1973, petitioner executed an Amendment4 of Real Estate Mortgage over its property. On March 31, 1981, petitioner secured another loan of P653,000.00 from respondent PNB, payable in quarterly installments of P32,650.00, plus interests and other charges.5
On August 5, 1982, respondent PNB filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage and sought to have the property sold at public auction for P911,532.21, petitioner's outstanding obligation to respondent PNB as of June 30, 1982,6 plus interests and attorney's fees.
After due notice and publication, the property was sold at public auction on September 28, 1982 where respondent PNB was declared the winning bidder for P1,000,000.00. The Certificate of Sale7 issued in its favor was registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, and was annotated at the dorsal portion of the title on February 17, 1983. Thus, the period to redeem the property was to expire on February 17, 1984.
Petitioner sent a letter dated August 25, 1983 to respondent PNB, requesting that it be granted an extension of time to redeem/repurchase the property.8 In its reply dated August 30, 1983, respondent PNB informed petitioner that the request had been referred to its Pasay City Branch for appropriate action and recommendation.9
In a letter10 dated February 10, 1984, petitioner reiterated its request for a one year extension from February 17, 1984 within which to redeem/repurchase the property on installment basis. It reiterated its request to repurchase the property on installment.11 Meanwhile, some PNB Pasay City Branch personnel informed petitioner that as a matter of policy, the bank does not accept "partial redemption."12
Since petitioner failed to redeem the property, the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. 32098 on June 1, 1984, and issued a new title in favor of respondent PNB.13 Petitioner's offers had not yet been acted upon by respondent PNB.
Meanwhile, the Special Assets Management Department (SAMD) had prepared a statement of account, and as of June 25, 1984 petitioner's obligation amounted to P1,574,560.47. This included the bid price ofP1,056,924.50, interest, advances of insurance premiums, advances on realty taxes, registration expenses, miscellaneous expenses and publication cost.14 When apprised of the statement of account, petitioner remittedP725,000.00 to respondent PNB as "deposit to repurchase," and Official Receipt No. 978191 was issued to it.15
In the meantime, the SAMD recommended to the management of respondent PNB that petitioner be allowed to repurchase the property for P1,574,560.00. In a letter dated November 14, 1984, the PNB management informed petitioner that it was rejecting the offer and the recommendation of the SAMD. It was suggested that petitioner purchase the property for P2,660,000.00, its minimum market value. Respondent PNB gave petitioner until December 15, 1984 to act on the proposal; otherwise, its P725,000.00 deposit would be returned and the property would be sold to other interested buyers.16
Petitioner, however, did not agree to respondent PNB's proposal. Instead, it wrote another letter dated December 12, 1984 requesting for a reconsideration. Respondent PNB replied in a letter dated December 28, 1984, wherein it reiterated its proposal that petitioner purchase the property for P2,660,000.00. PNB again informed petitioner that it would return the deposit should petitioner desire to withdraw its offer to purchase the property.17 On February 25, 1985, petitioner, through counsel, requested that PNB reconsider its letter dated December 28, 1984. Petitioner declared that it had already agreed to the SAMD's offer to purchase the property for P1,574,560.47, and that was why it had paid P725,000.00. Petitioner warned respondent PNB that it would seek judicial recourse should PNB insist on the position.18
On June 4, 1985, respondent PNB informed petitioner that the PNB Board of Directors had accepted petitioner's offer to purchase the property, but for P1,931,389.53 in cash less the P725,000.00 already deposited with it.19On page two of the letter was a space above the typewritten name of petitioner's President, Pablo Gabriel, where he was to affix his signature. However, Pablo Gabriel did not conform to the letter but merely indicated therein that he had received it.20 Petitioner did not respond, so PNB requested petitioner in a letter dated June 30, 1988 to submit an amended offer to repurchase.
Petitioner rejected respondent's proposal in a letter dated July 14, 1988. It maintained that respondent PNB had agreed to sell the property for P1,574,560.47, and that since its P725,000.00 downpayment had been accepted, respondent PNB was proscribed from increasing the purchase price of the property.21 Petitioner averred that it had a net balance payable in the amount of P643,452.34. Respondent PNB, however, rejected petitioner's offer to pay the balance of P643,452.34 in a letter dated August 1, 1989.22
On August 28, 1989, petitioner filed a complaint against respondent PNB for "Annulment of Mortgage and Mortgage Foreclosure, Delivery of Title, or Specific Performance with Damages." To support its cause of action for specific performance, it alleged the following:
34. As early as June 25, 1984, PNB had accepted the down payment from Manila Metal in the substantial amount of P725,000.00 for the redemption/repurchase price of P1,574,560.47 as approved by its SMAD and considering the reliance made by Manila Metal and the long time that has elapsed, the approval of the higher management of the Bank to confirm the agreement of its SMAD is clearly a potestative condition which cannot legally prejudice Manila Metal which has acted and relied on the approval of SMAD. The Bank cannot take advantage of a condition which is entirely dependent upon its own will after accepting and benefiting from the substantial payment made by Manila Metal.
35. PNB approved the repurchase price of P1,574,560.47 for which it accepted P725,000.00 from Manila Metal. PNB cannot take advantage of its own delay and long inaction in demanding a higher amount based on unilateral computation of interest rate without the consent of Manila Metal.
Petitioner later filed an amended complaint and supported its claim for damages with the following arguments:
36. That in order to protect itself against the wrongful and malicious acts of the defendant Bank, plaintiff is constrained to engage the services of counsel at an agreed fee of P50,000.00 and to incur litigation expenses of at least P30,000.00, which the defendant PNB should be condemned to pay the plaintiff Manila Metal.
37. That by reason of the wrongful and malicious actuations of defendant PNB, plaintiff Manila Metal suffered besmirched reputation for which defendant PNB is liable for moral damages of at leastP50,000.00.
38. That for the wrongful and malicious act of defendant PNB which are highly reprehensible, exemplary damages should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff by way of example or correction for the public good of at least P30,000.00.23
Petitioner prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in its favor, thus:
a) Declaring the Amended Real Estate Mortgage (Annex "A") null and void and without any legal force and effect.
b) Declaring defendant's acts of extra-judicially foreclosing the mortgage over plaintiff's property and setting it for auction sale null and void.
c) Ordering the defendant Register of Deeds to cancel the new title issued in the name of PNB (TCT NO. 43792) covering the property described in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, to reinstate TCT No. 37025 in the name of Manila Metal and to cancel the annotation of the mortgage in question at the back of the TCT No. 37025 described in paragraph 4 of this Complaint.
d) Ordering the defendant PNB to return and/or deliver physical possession of the TCT No. 37025described in paragraph 4 of this Complaint to the plaintiff Manila Metal.
e) Ordering the defendant PNB to pay the plaintiff Manila Metal's actual damages, moral and exemplary damages in the aggregate amount of not less than P80,000.00 as may be warranted by the evidence and fixed by this Honorable Court in the exercise of its sound discretion, and attorney's fees of P50,000.00 and litigation expenses of at least P30,000.00 as may be proved during the trial, and costs of suit.
Plaintiff likewise prays for such further reliefs which may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.24
In its Answer to the complaint, respondent PNB averred, as a special and affirmative defense, that it had acquired ownership over the property after the period to redeem had elapsed. It claimed that no contract of sale was perfected between it and petitioner after the period to redeem the property had expired.
During pre-trial, the parties agreed to submit the case for decision, based on their stipulation of facts.25 The parties agreed to limit the issues to the following:
1. Whether or not the June 4, 1985 letter of the defendant approving/accepting plaintiff's offer to purchase the property is still valid and legally enforceable.
2. Whether or not the plaintiff has waived its right to purchase the property when it failed to conform with the conditions set forth by the defendant in its letter dated June 4, 1985.
3. Whether or not there is a perfected contract of sale between the parties.26
While the case was pending, respondent PNB demanded, on September 20, 1989, that petitioner vacate the property within 15 days from notice,27 but petitioners refused to do so.
On March 18, 1993, petitioner offered to repurchase the property for P3,500,000.00.28 The offer was however rejected by respondent PNB, in a letter dated April 13, 1993. According to it, the prevailing market value of the property was approximately P30,000,000.00, and as a matter of policy, it could not sell the property for less than its market value.29 On June 21, 1993, petitioner offered to purchase the property for P4,250,000.00 in cash.30 The offer was again rejected by respondent PNB on September 13, 1993.31
On May 31, 1994, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the amended complaint and respondent PNB's counterclaim. It ordered respondent PNB to refund the P725,000.00 deposit petitioner had made.32 The trial court ruled that there was no perfected contract of sale between the parties; hence, petitioner had no cause of action for specific performance against respondent. The trial court declared that respondent had rejected petitioner's offer to repurchase the property. Petitioner, in turn, rejected the terms and conditions contained in the June 4, 1985 letter of the SAMD. While petitioner had offered to repurchase the property per its letter of July 14, 1988, the amount of P643,422.34 was way below the P1,206,389.53 which respondent PNB had demanded. It further declared that the P725,000.00 remitted by petitioner to respondent PNB on June 4, 1985 was a "deposit," and not a downpayment or earnest money.
On appeal to the CA, petitioner made the following allegations:
I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S LETTER DATED 4 JUNE 1985 APPROVING/ACCEPTING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S OFFER TO PURCHASE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLLANT WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO PURCHASE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEN IT FAILED TO CONFORM WITH CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE IN ITS LETTER DATED 4 JUNE 1985.
IV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT IT WAS THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE WHICH RENDERED IT DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TO COMPLETE THE BALANCE OF THEIR PURCHASE PRICE.
V
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO VALID RESCISSION OR CANCELLATION OF SUBJECT CONTRACT OF REPURCHASE.
VI
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED AND REFUSED TO SUBMIT THE AMENDED REPURCHASE OFFER.
VII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
VIII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT AWARDING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ACTUAL, MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, ATTOTRNEY'S FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES.33
Meanwhile, on June 17, 1993, petitioner's Board of Directors approved Resolution No. 3-004, where it waived, assigned and transferred its rights over the property covered by TCT No. 33099 and TCT No. 37025 in favor of Bayani Gabriel, one of its Directors.34 Thereafter, Bayani Gabriel executed a Deed of Assignment over 51% of the ownership and management of the property in favor of Reynaldo Tolentino, who later moved for leave to intervene as plaintiff-appellant. On July 14, 1993, the CA issued a resolution granting the motion,35 and likewise granted the motion of Reynaldo Tolentino substituting petitioner MMCC, as plaintiff-appellant, and his motion to withdraw as intervenor.36
The CA rendered judgment on May 11, 2000 affirming the decision of the RTC.37 It declared that petitioner obviously never agreed to the selling price proposed by respondent PNB (P1,931,389.53) since petitioner had kept on insisting that the selling price should be lowered to P1,574,560.47. Clearly therefore, there was no meeting of the minds between the parties as to the price or consideration of the sale.
The CA ratiocinated that petitioner's original offer to purchase the subject property had not been accepted by respondent PNB. In fact, it made a counter-offer through its June 4, 1985 letter specifically on the selling price; petitioner did not agree to the counter-offer; and the negotiations did not prosper. Moreover, petitioner did not pay the balance of the purchase price within the sixty-day period set in the June 4, 1985 letter of respondent PNB.
Consequently, there was no perfected contract of sale, and as such, there was no contract to rescind.
According to the appellate court, the claim for damages and the counterclaim were correctly dismissed by the court a quo for no evidence was presented to support it. Respondent PNB's letter dated June 30, 1988 cannot revive the failed negotiations between the parties. Respondent PNB merely asked petitioner to submit an amended offer to repurchase. While petitioner reiterated its request for a lower selling price and that the balance of the repurchase be reduced, however, respondent rejected the proposal in a letter dated August 1, 1989.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA likewise denied.
Thus, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, alleging that:
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE IS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE AMOUNT OF PHP725,000.00 PAID BY THE PETITIONER IS NOT AN EARNEST MONEY.
III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT TO SIGNIFY ITS CONFORMITY TO THE TERMS CONTAINED IN PNB'S JUNE 4, 1985 LETTER MEANS THAT THERE WAS NO VALID AND LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW THAT NON-PAYMENT OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT OF THE BALANCE OF THE OFFERED PRICE IN THE LETTER OF PNB DATED JUNE 4, 1985, WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF APPROVAL CONSTITUTES NO VALID AND LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
V. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT THE LETTERS OF PETITIONER-APPELLANT DATED MARCH 18, 1993 AND JUNE 21, 1993, OFFERING TO BUY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT DIFFERENT AMOUNT WERE PROOF THAT THERE IS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE.38
The threshold issue is whether or not petitioner and respondent PNB had entered into a perfected contract for petitioner to repurchase the property from respondent.
Petitioner maintains that it had accepted respondent's offer made through the SAMD, to sell the property forP1,574,560.00. When the acceptance was made in its letter dated June 25, 1984; it then depositedP725,000.00 with the SAMD as partial payment, evidenced by Receipt No. 978194 which respondent had issued. Petitioner avers that the SAMD's acceptance of the
deposit amounted to an acceptance of its offer to repurchase. Moreover, as gleaned from the letter of SAMD dated June 4, 1985, the PNB Board of Directors had approved petitioner's offer to purchase the property. It claims that this was the suspensive condition, the fulfillment of which gave rise to the contract. Respondent could no longer unilaterally withdraw its offer to sell the property for P1,574,560.47, since the acceptance of the offer resulted in a perfected contract of sale; it was obliged to remit to respondent the balance of the original purchase price of P1,574,560.47, while respondent was obliged to transfer ownership and deliver the property to petitioner, conformably with Article 1159 of the New Civil Code.
Petitioner posits that respondent was proscribed from increasing the interest rate after it had accepted respondent's offer to sell the property for P1,574,560.00. Consequently, respondent could no longer validly make a counter-offer of P1,931,789.88 for the purchase of the property. It likewise maintains that, although theP725,000.00 was considered as "deposit for the repurchase of the property" in the receipt issued by the SAMD, the amount constitutes earnest money as contemplated in Article 1482 of the New Civil Code. Petitioner cites the rulings of this Court in Villonco v. Bormaheco39 and Topacio v. Court of Appeals.40
Petitioner avers that its failure to append its conformity to the June 4, 1984 letter of respondent and its failure to pay the balance of the price as fixed by respondent within the 60-day period from notice was to protest respondent's breach of its obligation to petitioner. It did not amount to a rejection of respondent's offer to sell the property since respondent was merely seeking to enforce its right to pay the balance of P1,570,564.47. In any event, respondent had the option either to accept the balance of the offered price or to cause the rescission of the contract.
Petitioner's letters dated March 18, 1993 and June 21, 1993 to respondent during the pendency of the case in the RTC were merely to compromise the pending lawsuit, they did not constitute separate offers to repurchase the property. Such offer to compromise should not be taken against it, in accordance with Section 27, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.
For its part, respondent contends that the parties never graduated from the "negotiation stage" as they could not agree on the amount of the repurchase price of the property. All that transpired was an exchange of proposals and counter-proposals, nothing more. It insists that a definite agreement on the amount and manner of payment of the price are essential elements in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. There was no such agreement in this case. Primarily, the concept of "suspensive condition" signifies a future and uncertain event upon the fulfillment of which the obligation becomes effective. It clearly presupposes the existence of a valid and binding agreement, the effectivity of which is subordinated to its fulfillment. Since there is no perfected contract in the first place, there is no basis for the application of the principles governing "suspensive conditions."
According to respondent, the Statement of Account prepared by SAMD as of June 25, 1984 cannot be classified as a counter-offer; it is simply a recital of its total monetary claims against petitioner. Moreover, the amount stated therein could not likewise be considered as the counter-offer since as admitted by petitioner, it was only recommendation which was subject to approval of the PNB Board of Directors.
Neither can the receipt by the SAMD of P725,000.00 be regarded as evidence of a perfected sale contract. As gleaned from the parties' Stipulation of Facts during the proceedings in the court a quo, the amount is merely an acknowledgment of the receipt of P725,000.00 as deposit to repurchase the property. The deposit ofP725,000.00 was accepted by respondent on the condition that the purchase price would still be approved by its Board of Directors. Respondent maintains that its acceptance of the amount was qualified by that condition, thus not absolute. Pending such approval, it cannot be legally claimed that respondent is already bound by any contract of sale with petitioner.
According to respondent, petitioner knew that the SAMD has no capacity to bind respondent and that its authority is limited to administering, managing and preserving the properties and other special assets of PNB. The SAMD does not have the power to sell, encumber, dispose of, or otherwise alienate the assets, since the power to do so must emanate from its Board of Directors. The SAMD was not authorized by respondent's Board to enter into contracts of sale with third persons involving corporate assets. There is absolutely nothing on record that respondent authorized the SAMD, or made it appear to petitioner that it represented itself as having such authority.
Respondent reiterates that SAMD had informed petitioner that its offer to repurchase had been approved by the Board subject to the condition, among others, "that the selling price shall be the total bank's claim as of documentation date x x x payable in cash (P725,000.00 already deposited)
within 60 days from notice of approval." A new Statement of Account was attached therein indicating the total bank's claim to be P1,931,389.53 less deposit of P725,000.00, or P1,206,389.00. Furthermore, while respondent's Board of Directors accepted petitioner's offer to repurchase the property, the acceptance was qualified, in that it required a higher sale price and subject to specified terms and conditions enumerated therein. This qualified acceptance was in effect a counter-offer, necessitating petitioner's acceptance in return.
The Ruling of the Court
The ruling of the appellate court that there was no perfected contract of sale between the parties on June 4, 1985 is correct.
A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service.41 Under Article 1318 of the New Civil Code, there is no contract unless the following requisites concur:
(1) Consent of the contracting parties;
(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.
Contracts are perfected by mere consent which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract.42 Once perfected, they bind other contracting parties and the obligations arising therefrom have the form of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith. The parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.43
By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.44 The absence of any of the essential elements will negate the existence of a perfected contract of sale. As the Court ruled inBoston Bank of the Philippines v. Manalo:45
A definite agreement as to the price is an essential element of a binding agreement to sell personal or real property because it seriously affects the rights and obligations of the parties. Price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. The fixing of the price can never be left to the decision of one of the contracting parties. But a price fixed by one of the contracting parties, if accepted by the other, gives rise to a perfected sale.46
A contract of sale is consensual in nature and is perfected upon mere meeting of the minds. When there is merely an offer by one party without acceptance of the other, there is no contract.47 When the contract of sale is not perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of obligation, serve as a binding juridical relation between the parties.48
In San Miguel Properties Philippines, Inc. v. Huang,49 the Court ruled that the stages of a contract of sale are as follows: (1) negotiation, covering the period from the time the prospective contracting parties indicate interest in the contract to the time the contract is perfected; (2) perfection, which takes place upon the concurrence of the essential elements of the sale which are the meeting of the minds of the parties as to the object of the contract and upon the price; and (3) consummation, which begins when the parties perform their respective undertakings under the contract of sale, culminating in the extinguishment thereof.
A negotiation is formally initiated by an offer, which, however, must be certain.50 At any time prior to the perfection of the contract, either negotiating party may stop the negotiation. At this stage, the offer may be withdrawn; the withdrawal is effective immediately after its manifestation. To convert the offer into a contract, the acceptance must be absolute and must not qualify the terms of the offer; it must be plain, unequivocal, unconditional and without
variance of any sort from the proposal. In Adelfa Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,51 the Court ruled that:
x x x The rule is that except where a formal acceptance is so required, although the acceptance must be affirmatively and clearly made and must be evidenced by some acts or conduct communicated to the offeror, it may be shown by acts, conduct, or words of the accepting party that clearly manifest a present intention or determination to accept the offer to buy or sell. Thus, acceptance may be shown by the acts, conduct, or words of a party recognizing the existence of the contract of sale.52
A qualified acceptance or one that involves a new proposal constitutes a counter-offer and a rejection of the original offer. A counter-offer is considered in law, a rejection of the original offer and an attempt to end the negotiation between the parties on a different basis.53 Consequently, when something is desired which is not exactly what is proposed in the offer, such acceptance is not sufficient to guarantee consent because any modification or variation from the terms of the offer annuls the offer.54 The acceptance must be identical in all respects with that of the offer so as to produce consent or meeting of the minds.
In this case, petitioner had until February 17, 1984 within which to redeem the property. However, since it lacked the resources, it requested for more time to redeem/repurchase the property under such terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties.55 The request, which was made through a letter dated August 25, 1983, was referred to the respondent's main branch for appropriate action.56 Before respondent could act on the request, petitioner again wrote respondent as follows:
1. Upon approval of our request, we will pay your goodselves ONE HUNDRED & FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00);
2. Within six months from date of approval of our request, we will pay another FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P450,000.00); and
3. The remaining balance together with the interest and other expenses that will be incurred will be paid within the last six months of the one year grave period requested for.57
When the petitioner was told that respondent did not allow "partial redemption,"58 it sent a letter to respondent's President reiterating its offer to purchase the property.59 There was no response to petitioner's letters dated February 10 and 15, 1984.
The statement of account prepared by the SAMD stating that the net claim of respondent as of June 25, 1984 was P1,574,560.47 cannot be considered an unqualified acceptance to petitioner's offer to purchase the property. The statement is but a computation of the amount which petitioner was obliged to pay in case respondent would later agree to sell the property, including interests, advances on insurance premium, advances on realty taxes, publication cost, registration expenses and miscellaneous expenses.
There is no evidence that the SAMD was authorized by respondent's Board of Directors to accept petitioner's offer and sell the property for P1,574,560.47. Any acceptance by the SAMD of petitioner's offer would not bind respondent. As this Court ruled in AF Realty Development, Inc. vs. Diesehuan Freight Services, Inc.:60
Section 23 of the Corporation Code expressly provides that the corporate powers of all corporations shall be exercised by the board of directors. Just as a natural person may authorize another to do certain acts in his behalf, so may the board of directors of a corporation validly delegate some of its functions to individual officers or agents appointed by it. Thus, contracts or acts of a corporation must be made either by the board of directors or by a corporate agent duly authorized by the board. Absent such valid delegation/authorization, the rule is that the declarations of an individual director relating to the affairs of the corporation, but not in the course of, or connected with the performance of authorized duties of such director, are held not binding on the corporation.
Thus, a corporation can only execute its powers and transact its business through its Board of Directors and through its officers and agents when authorized by a board resolution or its by-laws.61
It appears that the SAMD had prepared a recommendation for respondent to accept petitioner's offer to repurchase the property even beyond the one-year period; it recommended that petitioner be allowed to redeem the property and pay P1,574,560.00 as the purchase price. Respondent later approved the recommendation that the property be sold to petitioner. But instead of the P1,574,560.47 recommended by the SAMD and to which petitioner had previously conformed, respondent set the purchase price at P2,660,000.00. In fine, respondent's acceptance of petitioner's offer was qualified, hence can be at most considered as a counter-offer. If petitioner had accepted this counter-offer, a perfected contract of sale would have arisen; as it turns out, however, petitioner merely sought to have the counter-offer reconsidered. This request for reconsideration would later be rejected by respondent.
We do not agree with petitioner's contention that the P725,000.00 it had remitted to respondent was "earnest money" which could be considered as proof of the perfection of a contract of sale under Article 1482 of the New Civil Code. The provision reads:
ART. 1482. Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract.
This contention is likewise negated by the stipulation of facts which the parties entered into in the trial court:
8. On June 8, 1984, the Special Assets Management Department (SAMD) of PNB prepared an updated Statement of Account showing MMCC's total liability to PNB as of June 25, 1984 to be P1,574,560.47 and recommended this amount as the repurchase price of the subject property.
9. On June 25, 1984, MMCC paid P725,000.00 to PNB as deposit to repurchase the property. The deposit of P725,000 was accepted by PNB on the condition that the purchase price is still subject to the approval of the PNB Board.62
Thus, the P725,000.00 was merely a deposit to be applied as part of the purchase price of the property, in the event that respondent would approve the recommendation of SAMD for respondent to accept petitioner's offer to purchase the property for P1,574,560.47. Unless and until the respondent accepted the offer on these terms, no perfected contract of sale would arise. Absent proof of the concurrence of all the essential elements of a contract of sale, the giving of earnest money cannot establish the existence of a perfected contract of sale.63
It appears that, per its letter to petitioner dated June 4, 1985, the respondent had decided to accept the offer to purchase the property for P1,931,389.53. However, this amounted to an amendment of respondent's qualified acceptance, or an amended counter-offer, because while the respondent lowered the purchase price, it still declared that its acceptance was subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. That the selling price shall be the total Bank's claim as of documentation date (pls. see attached statement of account as of 5-31-85), payable in cash (P725,000.00 already deposited) within sixty (60) days from notice of approval;
2. The Bank sells only whatever rights, interests and participation it may have in the property and you are charged with full knowledge of the nature and extent of said rights, interests and participation and waive your right to warranty against eviction.
3. All taxes and other government imposts due or to become due on the property, as well as expenses including costs of documents and science stamps, transfer fees, etc., to be incurred in connection with the execution and registration of all covering documents shall be borne by you;
4. That you shall undertake at your own expense and account the ejectment of the occupants of the property subject of the sale, if there are any;
5. That upon your failure to pay the balance of the purchase price within sixty (60) days from receipt of advice accepting your offer, your deposit shall be forfeited and the Bank is thenceforth authorized to sell the property to other interested parties.
6. That the sale shall be subject to such other terms and conditions that the Legal Department may impose to protect the interest of the Bank.64
It appears that although respondent requested petitioner to conform to its amended counter-offer, petitioner refused and instead requested respondent to reconsider its amended counter-offer. Petitioner's request was ultimately rejected and respondent offered to refund its P725,000.00 deposit.
In sum, then, there was no perfected contract of sale between petitioner and respondent over the subject property.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED.
The assailed decision is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner Manila Metal Container Corporation.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, J., Working Chairperson, Austria-Martinez, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.Panganiban, C.J., retired as of December 7, 2006.
