23 enrico eulogio v spouses clemente apeles and luz apeles

Facts
Spouses apeles owned a house and lot which was leased to Arturo eulogio,
enricos father. Upon arturos death, enrico succeeded as lessor and used the
property as his residence and usiness !uying and selling of imported cars."
#n $an %, &'(), apeles and enrico entered into a contract of lease with option to
purchase the said property. *he contract a+orded enrico, efore the e,piration of
the three year lease period, the option to purchase the property for a price not
e,ceeding &.-.. efore the e,piration, enrico e,ercised his option y
communicating verally and in writing to luz, ut the spouses supposedly ignore
such manifestation, and which prompted enrico to see/ recourse from arangay
for the enforcement of his right, ut despite several notices, the spouses failed to
appear efore the arangy for settlement proceedings, hence the arangay
issued to enrico a certi0cate to 0le action.
#n $an 2%, &''), the spouses wrote a letter to enrico demanding payment of his
rental arrears from $an &''& to 1ecemer &''% and to vacate the property as the
spouses has a need for it. 2nrico instituted on fe 23 &''' a complaint for
speci0c performance with damages against the spouses at rtc, which decided in
his favour. *he 3A reversed the decision, hence this petition.
4ssue5 whether the option contract was valid
6uling. *he option contract was not valid.
Under the law, a promise to uy and sell a determinate thing for a price
certain is reciprocally demandale. An accepted unilateral promise to uy or to
sell a determinate thing for a price certain is inding upon the promissory if the
promise is supported y a consideration distinct from the price.
4n this case, the option contract was not founded on a consideration
distinct from the price. *he only consideration agreed upon y the parties in the
said contract is the supposed purchase price for the su$ect property in the
amount not e,ceeding 7&.- ., which could not e deemed to e the same
consideration for the option contract since the law and $urisprudence e,plicitly
dictate that for the option contract to e valid, it must e supported y a
consideration separate and distinct from the price.
7etition is denied.