Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 322 views

    Dizon vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Krizzle de la Peña
    This case involves a contract of lease with an option to purchase land between petitioners and private respondent. The private respondent failed to pay rent and was ordered to vacate the premises. They then filed a case claiming the option to purchase was perfected when partial payment was made. The court ruled there was no perfected contract of sale as the essential elements of consent, object and price were not met. Specifically, the petitioners did not consent to the sale or authorize the agent to act on their behalf. As such, the private respondent's claim of a perfected contract was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dizon vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Krizzle de la Peña
    322 views2 pages
    This case involves a contract of lease with an option to purchase land between petitioners and private respondent. The private respondent failed to pay rent and was ordered to vacate the premises. They then filed a case claiming the option to purchase was perfected when partial payment was made. The court ruled there was no perfected contract of sale as the essential elements of consent, object and price were not met. Specifically, the petitioners did not consent to the sale or authorize the agent to act on their behalf. As such, the private respondent's claim of a perfected contract was denied.

    Original Title

    2. DIZON VS. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a contract of lease with an option to purchase land between petitioners and private respondent. The private respondent failed to pay rent and was ordered to vacate the premises. They then filed a case claiming the option to purchase was perfected when partial payment was made. The court ruled there was no perfected contract of sale as the essential elements of consent, object and price were not met. Specifically, the petitioners did not consent to the sale or authorize the agent to act on their behalf. As such, the private respondent's claim of a perfected contract was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    322 views2 pages

    Dizon vs. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Krizzle de la Peña
    This case involves a contract of lease with an option to purchase land between petitioners and private respondent. The private respondent failed to pay rent and was ordered to vacate the premises. They then filed a case claiming the option to purchase was perfected when partial payment was made. The court ruled there was no perfected contract of sale as the essential elements of consent, object and price were not met. Specifically, the petitioners did not consent to the sale or authorize the agent to act on their behalf. As such, the private respondent's claim of a perfected contract was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DIZON VS.

    CA
    G.R. No. 122544 January 28, 1999

    FACTS:
    On 1974, Private respondent Overland Express Lines, Inc entered into a Contract of
    Lease with Option to buy with petitioners involving a land situated at Quezon City for one
    (1) year. During that period the respondent was granted an option to purchase the land.
    In 1976, for failure of lessee to pay the rentals the petitioners filed an action for
    ejectment. The City Court rendered judgment ordering lessee to vacate the leased premises
    and to pay the rentals in arrears and damages with interests. Lessee filed a petition enjoining
    the enforcement of said judgment and dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. Such
    petition was denied.
    Thereafter, lessee filed for an action for specific performance to compel the execution
    of a deed of sale pursuant to the option to purchase and the receipt of the partial
    consideration given to Alice Dizon and for the fixing of period to pay the balance. Respondent
    Court of Appeals rendered a decision upholding the jurisdiction of City Court and concluding
    that there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties due to the said partial
    payment. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the respondent Court.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the contract of sale between petitioners and private respondent is
    perfected.

    RULING:
    There was no perfected contract of sale between the parties. Under Article 1475 of
    the New Civil Code, "the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of
    minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that
    moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the
    law governing the form of contracts." Thus, the elements of a contract of sale are consent,
    object, and price in money or its equivalent. It bears stressing that the absence of any of these
    essential elements negates the existence of a perfected contract of sale. Sale is a consensual
    contract and he who alleges it must show its existence by competent proof.

    In an attempt to resurrect the lapsed option, private respondent gave P300,000.00 to


    petitioners (thru Alice A. Dizon) on the erroneous presumption that the said amount
    tendered would constitute a perfected contract of sale pursuant to the contract of lease with
    option to buy. There was no valid consent by the petitioners (as co-owners of the leased
    premises) on the supposed sale entered into by Alice A. Dizon, as petitioners' alleged agent,
    and private respondent. The basis for agency is representation and a person dealing with an
    agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. As
    provided in Article 1868 of the New Civil Code, there was no showing that petitioners
    consented to the act of Alice A. Dizon nor authorized her to act on their behalf with regard to
    her transaction with private respondent. The most prudent thing private respondent should
    have done was to ascertain the extent of the authority of Alice A. Dizon. Being negligent in
    this regard, private respondent cannot seek relief on the basis of a supposed agency.

    You might also like