NEGOTIATION

1. LIMSON V. CA
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
 Respondents Sps Santos-De Vera though their agent Sanchez, offered to
sell to petitioner Lourdes Ong Limson a parcel of land in Barrio San
Dionisio, Parañaque
 Limson agreed to buy the property at the price of P34.00 per sqm and
have the sum of P20k as EARNEST MONEY
 Respondent sps gave Limson a 10-day option period to purchase the
propery
 Husband, Lorenzo de vera then informed Lim that the subject property
was mortgaged to another named Ramos, and that such respondent
asked her to pay the balance of the purchase price to enable him and
his wife to settle their obligation with the ramoses
 MEETINGS:
o 1ST MEETING –  Petitioner averred that she agreed to meet
respondent sps and the ramoses at the office of the registry of
deeds of makati but the respondent sps and the ramoses failed to
show; hence, no deed was formalized
o 2ND MEETING – respondents failed to pay the back taxes of subject
property
 Limsons gave Lorenzo de Vera three checks in the total of P36k for the
settlement of the back taxes of the property and for the payment of the
quitclaiims
o Amount was considered part of the purchase priice
 Property was the subject of a negotiation for the sale to respondent
Sunvar Realty Development Corp (SUNVAR) represented by respondent
Cuenca
 Petitioner discovered that although respodent purchased the property
from the ramoses it was only 8 yeards after that the TCT coveriing the
property was issued to respondent sps; as a consequence, she filed an
AFFIDAVIT OF ADVERSE CLAIM
 Deed of Sale between the respondent sps and SUNVAr. A TCT was
issued in favor of SUNVAR with the adverse claim of the petitioner
 Petitoner claimed that when the respondent sps sold the property in
dispute to SUNVAR, her valid and legal right was ignored and violated
o SUNVAR was in bad faith since it knew of her contract
 ANSWER (RESPONDENT SPS)
o Option to buy had expiired; that there was no perfected contract
to sell between them; and, that the petitioner had no legal
capacity to sue
  ANSWER (SUNVAR AND CUENCA)
o Petitioner had lost her option to buy the property for failure to
comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement as
embodied iin the receipt
 ANSWER TO THE CROSS-CLAIM (SUNVAR AND CUENCA)
o Negotiated with the sps only after the expiration of the option
period given to petiitioner and her failure to comply with her
commitments

ISSUES:
WON there is a perfected contract between respondents petitioner Lim and the
respondent spouses

HELD:
 The agreement between the parties was merely a contract of option and
not a contract to sell
o OPTION – is a continuing offer or contract by which the owner
stipulates with another that the latter shall have the right to buy
the property at a fixed price within a time certaiin, or under, or in
compliance with, certain terms and conditions, or which gives to
the owner of the property the right to sell or demand a sale
 Unnaccepted offer
 Merely secures the privilege to buy
 Until acceptance it is NOT, properly speaking, a contract,
and does not vest, transfer, any title to, or any interest or

2. ROSENCOR DEVT V. INQUIRING

DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:

3. TUAZON V. DEL ROSARIO-SUAREZ

DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:

PERFECTION

4. Villongco v. Bormaheco
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
 ISSUES:
HELD:

5. Uraca v. CA
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:

6. San Miguel Properties v. Huang

DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:

7. Robern Devt. V. Ppl’s Landless Ass.

DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:

8. Ali Akang v. Mun. of Isulan

DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:

9. David v. Misamis Electric Coop

DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:

10. Starbright Sales v. Phil. Realty Corp

DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD:

11. DBP v. Medrano

DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUES:
HELD: