FLORENCIA CRONICO, substituted by LUCILLE E. VENTURANZA vs. J. M.

TUASON &
CO., INC., and CLAUDIO R. RAMIREZ . G.R. No. L-35272 August 26, 1977
FERNANDEZ, J:
FACTS:
In Civil Case No. Q-6363 entitled "Florencia Cronico vs J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. Judgment was
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, declaring the Contract to Sell
executed by defendant corporation in favor of its co- defendant Ramirez on April 2,1962, as
NULL and VOID.

Appellant J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc. hereinafter referred to as appellant company was the
registered owner of Lot No. 22, Block 461, Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision, located at the
Northwestern corner of Quezon Boulevard and Gregorio Araneta, Quezon In March, 1962,
plaintiff Cronico offered to buy the lot from the appellant company with the help of Venturanza.
They personally talked to Benjamin F. Bautista, the appellant company's attorney-in-fact,
proposing to buy Lot No. 22. She was required to present proofs to show her rights to the lot.
On March 8, 1962, Cronico exhibited certain documents showing her priority rights to buy the
lot.

In the first week of March, 1962, defendant-appellant Ramirez also learned that the lot in
question was being sold by the appellant company. The occupants thereof who also had priority
rights to buy the land informed Ramirez, about the intended sale. Plaintiff Cronico and
defendant- appellant Ramirez sent separate individual letters to appellant company wherein
they expressed their desire to purchase the land and requested information concerning the
area, the price and other terms and conditions of the contract to sell. Plaintiff Cronico and
Venturanza went to the post office in Manila and after she got the letter, they went directly to the
office of Gregorio Araneta Inc., Escolta, Manila, and presented the letter to Bautista Since she
had no money, plaintiff Cronies requested Venturanza to issue a check in the amount of
P33,572.00 to cover the down payment for the lot which Bautista did not accept. He advised
plaintiff Cronies that it is Gregorio Araneta II who would decide whose offer to buy may be
accepts after the appellant company receives the registry return cards attached to the registered
letters sent to the offerors.

Appellant Ramirez received from the post office the reply letter of the appellant company
wherein it stated that Lot 22, Block 461, Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision, was available for sale
under the conditions therein set forth and that the said lot was being offered for sale on a first
come first serve basis. Appellant Ramirez proceeded to the office of Bautista in the same
morning stating that he accepted the conditions stated in the appellant company's letter.
Bautista advised appellant Ramirez to wait for the decision of Gregorio Araneta II. The next day,
appellant Ramirez presented his letter to the appellant company confirming his verbal
acceptance of the terms and conditions in connection with the sale. Patangco in behalf of
appellant Ramirez wrote the appellant company requesting the early execution of the proper
contract to sell over Lot No. 22. A check in the amount of P33,572 was enclosed in the letter to
cover the down payment for said lot. The request was favorably considered.

On April 2, 1962, the J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc., and Claudio R. Ramirez executed a contract to
sell whereby the appellant company agreed to sell to appellant Ramirez the lot in question for a
total price of P167,896.00 subject to the terms and conditions therein set forth.

Meanwhile, the appellant company received a letter from Atty. Godofredo Asuncion in behalf of
Cronico requesting that the lot subject of litigation be 'sold to her. She tendered a check to cover
the down payment which was, however, returned. Appellant company sent a letter to the
plaintiff-appellee informing her that it had decided to sell the lot in question to appellant
Ramirez. This triggered the instant suit.

The Court of Appeals entertained serious doubts as to the financial capability of petitioner
Florencia Cronico to purchase the property because she was receiving only the amount of
P150.00 a month as her salary from her employment and there was no showing that she had
sources of income other than her job.

ISSUE:

(1) W/N the promise of the respondent company to sell the lot in question to the petitioner
Cronico has no consideration separate from the selling price of said lot.

(2) W/N petitioner validly accepted the offer such that she has a better right to the contract of
sale.

HELD:

(1) YES. In order that a unilateral promise may be binding upon the promisor, Article 1479, Civil
Code of the Philippines, requires the concurrence of the condition that the promise be
"supported by a consideration distinct from the price. Accordingly, the promisee can not compel
the promisor to comply with the promise, unless the former establishes the existence of said
distinct consideration. The promisee has the burden of proving such consideration. The
petitioner, Florencia Cronies, has not established the existence of a consideration distinct from
the price of the lot in question.

The petitioner cannot claim that she had accepted the promise before it was withdrawn
because, as stated above, she had violated the condition of "first, come, first served" Moreover,
it was only on March 27, 1962 that the respondent company received a letter from counsel of
the petitioner requesting that the lot subject of this litigation be sold to her. The respondent,
Claudio R. Ramirez, had on March 23, 1962, confirmed in writing his verbal acceptance of the
terms and conditions of the sale of the lot in question.

(2) NO. The contention of the petitioner that she has become the obligee or creditor of the
respondent company because she was the first to comply with the terms of the letter-offer has
no merit. Her so-called acceptance has no effect because she violated the condition of "first
come, first served" by taking delivery of the reply letter of the respondent company in the entry
section of the Manila post office and of the fact that her formal letter of acceptance was only
received by the respondent company on March 27, 1962.