3/11/2015

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

[Syllabus]

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.118509.March29,1996]

LIMKETKAISONSMILLINGINC.,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,ET
AL.,respondents.
RESOLUTION
FRANCISCO,J.:

Inthismotionforreconsideration,theCourt*iscalledupontotakeasecondhardlookon
its December 1, 1995 decision reversing and setting aside respondent Court of Appeals
judgment of August 12, 1994 that dismissed petitioner Limketkai Sons Milling Inc.s
complaint for specific performance and damages against private respondents Bank of the
PhilippineIslands(BPI)andNationalBookStore(NBS).PetitionerLimketkaiSonsMilling,
Inc., opposed the motion and filed its Consolidated Comment, to which private respondent
NBSfiledaReply.Thereafter,petitionerfileditsManifestationandMotionforthevoluntary
inhibition of Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa from taking part in any subsequent
[1]
deliberationsinthiscase.TheHonorableChiefJusticedeclined.
TheCourtisswayedtoreconsider.
The bottomline issue is whether or not a contract of sale of the subject parcel of land
existed between the petitioner and respondent BPI.A reevaluation of the attendant facts
andtheevidenceonrecord,specificallypetitionersExhibitsAtoI,yieldsthenegative.
Toelaborate:
[2]

ExhibitA is a Deed of Trust dated May 14, 1976, entered into between Philippine
RemnantsCo.Inc.,asgrantor,andrespondentBPI,astrustee,statingthatsubjectproperty
[3]

covered by TCT 493122 (formerly TCT No. 27324) has [been] assigned, transferred,
[4]
conveyedandsetoveruntotheTrustee expresslyauthorizingandempoweringthesame
[5]
initsownnametosellanddisposeofsaidtrustpropertyoranylotorparcelthereof and
to facilitate [the] sale of the trust property, the Trustee may engage the services of real
estate broker or brokers, under such terms and conditions which the Trustee may deem
[6]
proper,toselltheTrustpropertyoranylotorparcelthereof.
ExhibitBisaLetterofAuthorityforthepetitionerissuedbyrespondentBPItoPedro
A.Revilla,Jr.,arealestatebroker,tosellthepropertypursuanttotheDeedofTrust.Thefull
textofExhibitBisherebyquoted:
TrustAccountNo.7509
23June1988
ASSETRADECO.
70SanFranciscoSt.
CapitolSubdivision
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

1/11

3/11/2015

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

Pasig,MetroManila
Attention:Mr.PedroP.Revilla,Jr.
ManagingPartner.
Gentlemen:
ThiswillserveasyourauthoritytosellonanasiswhereisbasisthepropertylocatedatPasig
Blvd.,BagongIlog,Pasig,MetroManila,underthefollowingdetailsandbasictermsandconditions:
TCTNo.:493122inthenameofBPIastrusteeofPhilippineRemnantsCo.,Inc.
Area: 33,056.0 square meters (net of 890 sq. m. sold to the Republic of the
PhilippinesduetothewideningofPasigBlvd.)
Price:P1,100.00persq.m.orP36,361,600.000.
Terms:Cash
BrokersCommission:2%

Others:a)Docuemntary(sic)stampstobeaffixedtoDeedofAbsoluteSale,transfertax,
registrationexpenses,andothertitlingexpensesforaccountoftheBuyer.
b)Capitalgainstax,ifpayable,andrealestatetaxesupto30June1988shallbe
fortheaccountoftheSeller.
Thisauthoritywhichisgoodforthirty(30)daysonlyfromdatehereofisnonexclusiveandonafirst
comefirstservebasis.
Verytrulyyours,
BANKOFTHEPHILIPPINEISLANDS
astrusteeof
PhilippineRemnantsCo.,Inc.
(Sgd.)(Sgd.)
FERNANDOJ.SISON,IIIALFONSOR.ZAMORA
AssistantVicePresidentVicePresident
[Note:Italicssupplied]
securityguardondutyatsubjectpropertytoallowhim(Revilla,Jr.)andhiscompaniontoconductan
[7]

ocularinspectionofthepremises.

ExhibitDisaletteraddressedbyPedroRevilla,Jr.torespondentBPIinformingthe
[8]
latterthathehasprocuredaprospectivebuyer.
ExhibitE is the written proposal submitted by Alfonso Y. Lim in behalf of petitioner
[9]
LimketkaiSonsMilling,Inc.,offeringtobuythesubjectpropertyatP1,000.00/sq.m.
Exhibit F is respondent BPIs letter addressed to petitioner pointing out that
petitionersproposalembodiedinitsLetter(ExhibitE)hasbeenrejectedbytherespondent
[10]

BPIsTrustCommittee.

Exhibit G is petitioners letter dated July 22, 1988 reiterating its offer to buy the
[11]

subjectpropertyatP1,000/sq.m.butnowoncashbasis.

ExhibitHreferstorespondentBPIsanotherrejectionofpetitionersoffertobuythe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

2/11

3/11/2015

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

[12]

propertyatP1,000/sq.m.

Andfinally,ExhibitIisaletterbypetitioneraddressedtorespondentBPIclaimingthe
[13]

existenceofaperfectedcontractofsaleofthesubjectpropertybetweenthem.

Theseexhibits,eitherscrutinizedsinglyorcollectively,donotrevealaperfectionofthe
purported contract of sale. Article 1458 of the Civil Code defines a contract of sale as
follows:
ART.1458.Bythecontractofsaleoneofthecontractingpartiesobligateshimselftotransferthe
ownershipofandtodeliveradeterminatething,andtheothertopaythereforapricecertaininmoney
oritsequivalent.
Acontractofsalemaybeabsoluteorconditional.
Article1475ofthesamecodespecificallyprovideswhenacontractofsaleisdeemed
perfected,towit:
ART.1475.Thecontractofsaleisperfectedatthemomentthereismeetingofmindsuponthething
whichistheobjectofthecontractandupontheprice.
Fromthatmoment,thepartiesmayreciprocallydemandperformance,subjecttotheprovisionsofthe
lawgoverningtheformofcontracts.
[14]

The Court in Toyota Shaw, Inc. v. Court of Appeals had already ruled that a definite
agreementonthemannerofpaymentofthepriceisanessentialelementintheformationof
a binding and enforceable contract of sale. Petitioners exhibits did not establish any
definitiveagreementormeetingofthemindsbetweentheconcernedpartiesasregardsthe
price or term of payment. Instead, what merely appears therefrom is respondent BPIs
[15]

repeated rejection of the petitioners proposal to buy the property at P1,000/ sq.m. In
addition,evenontheassumptionthatExhibitEreflectsthatrespondentBPIofferedtosell
the disputed property for P1,000/sq. m., petitioners acceptance of the offer is conditioned
[16]

uponorqualifiedbyitsproposedterms

towhichrespondentBPImustfirstagreewith.

Onthesubjectofconsentasanessentialelementofcontracts,Article1319oftheCivil
Codehasthistosay:
ART.1319.Consentismanifestedbythemeetingoftheofferandtheacceptanceuponthethingand
thecausewhicharetoconstitutethecontract.Theoffermustbecertainandtheacceptanceabsolute.
Aqualifiedacceptanceconstitutesacounteroffer.
xxxxxxxxx.
Theacceptanceofanoffermustthereforbeunqualifiedandabsolute.Inotherwords,itmust
beidenticalinallrespectswiththatoftheoffersoastoproduceconsentormeetingofthe
minds. This was not the case herein considering that petitioners acceptance of the offer
[17]
was qualified, which amounts to a rejection of the original offer. And contrary to
petitionersassertionthatitsofferwasacceptedbyrespondentBPI,therewasnoshowing
thatpetitionercompliedwiththetermsandconditionsexplicitlylaiddownbyrespondentBPI
[18]
for prospective buyers. Neither was the petitioner able to prove that its offer to buy the
subjectpropertywasformallyapprovedbythebeneficialownerofthepropertyandtheTrust
CommitteeoftheBank,anessentialrequirementfortheacceptanceoftheofferwhichwas
clearlyspecifiedinExhibitsFandH.Evenmoretellingispetitionersunexplainedfailureto
reduceinwritingtheallegedacceptanceofitsoffertobuythepropertyatP1,000/sq.m.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

3/11

3/11/2015

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

TheCourtalsofindsasunconvincingpetitionersrepresentationunderExhibitsE,G,
andIthatitsproposaltobuythesubjectpropertyforP1,000/sq.m.hasbeenacceptedby
respondent BPI, considering that none of the said Exhibits contained the signature of any
responsibleofficialofrespondentbank.
It is therefore evident from the foregoing that petitioners documentary evidence
flounderedinestablishingitsclaimofaperfectedcontractofsale.
Moreover, petitioners case failed to hurdle the strict requirements of the Statute of
Frauds.Article1403oftheCivilCodestates:
ART.1403.Thefollowingcontractsareunenforceable,unlesstheyareratified:
(1)xxxxxxxxx
(2)ThosethatdonotcomplywiththeStatuteofFraudsassetforthinthisnumber.Inthefollowing
casesanagreementhereaftermadeshallbeunenforceablebyaction,unlessthesame,orsomenoteor
memorandum,thereof,beinwriting,andsubscribedbythepartycharged,orbyhisagentevidence,
therefore,oftheagreementcannotbereceivedwithoutthewriting,orasecondaryevidenceofits
contents:
xxxxxxxxx
(e)Anagreementfortheleasingforalongperiodthanoneyear,orforthesaleofrealpropertyorof
aninteresttherein.
xxxxxxxxx.
Inthiscasethereisapatentabsenceofanydeedofsalecategoricallyconveyingthesubject
property from respondent BPI to petitioner. Exhibits E, G, I which petitioner claims as
proof of perfected contract of sale between it and respondent BPI were not subscribed by
the party charged, i.e., BPI, and did not constitute the memoranda or notes that the law
[19]
speaksof. ToconsiderthemsufficientcompliancewiththeStatuteofFraudsistobetray
the avowed purpose of the law to prevent fraud and perjury in the enforcement of
obligations.Weshare,inthisconnection,respondentCourtofAppealsobservationwhenit
said:
xxx.TherequirementthatthenotesormemorandabesubscribedbyBPIoritsagents,astheparty
charged,isveryvitalforthestrictcompliancewiththeavowedpurposeoftheStatuteofFraudswhich
istopreventfraudandperjuryintheenforcementofobligationsdependingfortheirevidenceonthe
unassistedmemoryofwitnessesbyrequiringcertainenumeratedcontractsandtransactionstobe
evidencedbyawritingsignedbythepartytobecharged(AsiaProductionCo.,Inc.vs.Pano,205
SCRA458).Itcannotbegainsaidthatashrewdpersoncouldeasilyconcoctastoryinhisletters
addressedtotheotherpartyandpresenttheletterstothecourtasnotestoprovetheexistenceofa
perfectedoralcontractofsalewhenintruththereisnone.
InadherencetotheprovisionsoftheStatuteofFrauds,theexaminationandevaluationofthenotes
ormemorandaadducedbytheappelleewasconfinedandlimitedtowithinthefourcornersofthe
documents.Togobeyondwhatappearsonthefaceofthedocumentsconstitutingthenotesor
memoranda,stretchingtheirimportbeyondwhatiswritteninblackandwhite,wouldcertainlybe
uncalledfor,ifnotviolativeoftheStatuteofFraudsandopeningthedoorstofraud,theveryevil
soughttobeavoidedbythestatute.Infine,consideringthatthedocumentsadducedbytheappellee
donotembodytheessentialsofthecontractofsaleasidefromnothavingbeensubscribedbythe
partychargedoritsagent,thetransactioninvolveddefinitelyfallswithintheambitoftheStatuteof
Frauds.

[20]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

4/11

3/11/2015

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

[Note:Italicsadded]
Corrolarily,asthepetitionersexhibitsfailedtoestablishtheperfectionofthecontractof
[21]
sale,oraltestimonycannottaketheirplacewithoutviolatingtheparolevidencerule. Itwas
therefore irregular for the trial court to have admitted in evidence testimony to prove the
existenceofacontractofsaleofarealpropertybetweenthepartiesdespitedepersistent
objection made by private respondents counsels as early as the first scheduled hearing.
While said counsels crossexamined the witnesses, this, to our view, did not constitute a
[22]
waiveroftheparolevidencerule.TheTalosigv.Vda.deNieba, andAbrenicav.Gonda
[23]

anddeGracia casescitedbytheCourtinitsinitialdecision,whichruledtotheeffectthat
anobjectionagainsttheadmissionofanyevidencemustbemadeatthepropertime,i.e.,x
[24]

xxatthetimequestionisasked, and that if not so made it will be understood to have

[25]
been waived, do not apply as these two cases involved facts different from the case at
bench. More importantly, here, the direct testimonies of the witnesses were presented in
affidavitformwherepromptobjectiontoinadmissibleevidenceishardlypossible,whereas
thedirecttestimoniesinthesecitedcasesweredeliveredorallyinopencourt.Thebestthat
counselscouldhavedone,andwhichtheydid,underthecircumstanceswastoprefacethe
crossexaminationwithobjection.Thus:
ATTY.VARGAS:
BeforeIproceedwiththecrossexaminationofthewitness,yourHonor,mayweobjecttothe
particularportionoftheaffidavitwhichattempttoprovetheexistenceofaverbalcontracttosell
morespecificallytheanswerscontainedinpage3,Par.1,thewholeoftheanswer.
xxxxxxxxx.

COURT:
Objectionoverruled.
Atty.VARGAS.
YourHonor,whathasbeendeniedbytheCourtwasthemotionforpreliminaryhearingon
affirmativedefenses.Thestatementmadebythewitnesstoprovethattherewasaverbalcontractto
sellisinadmissibleinevidenceinthiscasebecauseanagreementmustbeinwriting.
COURT:
Goahead,thathasbeenalreadyoverruled.
ATTY.VARGAS:
Somaywereiterateourobjectionwithregardstoallotherportionsoftheaffidavitwhichdealonthe
[26]
verbalcontract.(TSN,Feb.28,1989,pp.35Italicssupplied.)
xxxxxxxxx

ATTY.CORNAGO:
Beforeweproceed,wewouldliketomakeofrecordourcontinuingobjectioninsofarasquestionsand
answerspropoundedtoPedroRevilladatedFebruary27,1989,insofarasquestionswouldillicit(sic)
answerswhichwouldbeviolativeofthebestevidenceruleinrelationtoArt.1403.Ireferto
questionsNos.8,13,16and19oftheaffidavitofthiswitnesswhichisconsideredashisdirect
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

5/11

3/11/2015

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

testimony.(T.S.N.,June29,1990,p.2)
ATTY.CORNAGO:
Maywemakeofrecordourcontinuedobjectiononthetestimonywhichisviolativeofthebest
evidenceruleinrelationtoArt.1403ascontainedintheaffidavitparticularlyquestionsNos.12,14,
19and20oftheaffidavitofAlfonsoLimexecutedonFebruary24,1989xxx.(T.S.N.,June28,
1990,p.8).

[27]

Counsels should not be blamed and, worst, penalized for taking the path of prudence by
choosing to crossexamine the witnesses instead of keeping mum and letting the
inadmissible testimony in affidavit form pass without challenge. We thus quote with
approvaltheobservationofpublicrespondentCourtofAppealsonthispoint:
Asalogicalconsequenceoftheabovefindings,itfollowsthatthecourtaquoerredinallowingthe
appelleetointroduceparolevidencetoprovetheexistenceofaperfectedcontractofsaleoverand
abovetheobjectionofthecounselforthedefendantappellant.Therecordsshowthatthecourtaquo
allowedthedirecttestimonyofthewitnessestobeinaffidavitformsubjecttocrossexaminationby
theopposingcounsel.Ifthepurposethereofwastopreventtheopposingcounselfromobjecting
timelytothedirecttestimony,theschemefailedforasearlyasthefirsthearingofthecaseon
February28,1989duringthepresentationofthetestimonyinaffidavitformofPedroRevilla,Jr.,
plaintiffappelleesfirstwitness,thepresentationofsuchtestimonywasalreadyobjectedtoas
[28]
inadmissible.
[Italicssupplied.]
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingpremises,theCourtherebyGRANTSthemotion
for reconsideration, and SETS ASIDE its December 1, 1995 decision. Accordingly, the
petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals decision dated August 12, 1994, appealed
fromisAFFIRMEDintoto.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.(Chairman)andDavide,Jr.,J.,concur.
Panganiban,J.,joinsJusticeMelosdissent.
*

The Third Division of this Court was initially composed of Justices Feliciano, Romero, Melo, Vitug and
Panganiban.AfterthepromulgationoftheDecember1,1995decisionandinviewofJusticeFelicianos
retirement, the different Divisions of the Court were reorganized. Consequently, the present Third
Division is now composed of Chief Justice Narvasa and Justices Davide, Melo, Francisco and
Panganiban.

[1]

In a Memorandum dated March 18, 1996, addressed to the members of the Courts Third Division, the
HonorableChiefJusticeAndresNarvasanotedpetitionersbaselessmotion.Thus:

2.Theinformationuponwhichpetitionerreliesisutterlywithoutfoundationinfactandisnothingbutpurespeculation
orwishfulyearning.TheChiefJusticewishestostatefortherecordthatwhilestillinprivatepractice,heneverhad
occasiontorepresenttheNationalBookstoreand/oritsprincipalowner,theRamosfamily,inanycaseormatter
whatsoeverthathehasneverhadanytransactionatallwiththemandthatindeed,hehasnorecollectionofeverhaving
evenpurchasedanythingfromsaidstoreandthathedoesnotknow,andasfarasheknowshenevermet,anymemberof
theRamosfamilydescribedasprincipalownersoftheNationalBookstore.
3.ThereisthusabsolutelynoreasonfortheinhibitionoftheChiefJusticeinthiscase,andhewillcontinuetotakepart
inallsubsequentdeliberationsinthiscase.
[2]

Records,pp.1014.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

6/11

3/11/2015

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

Complaint,p.2Records,p.2.
DeedofTrust,p.2Records,p.11.
Id.
Id.
TheFullTextofExhibitCisasfollows:

TrustAccountNo.7511
08July1988
TheSecurityGuard
OnDetail
UniversalSecurity&
InvestigationAgency
c/oPhil.RemnantsCo.,Inc.
PasigBlvd.,BagongIlog
Pasig.MetroManila
DearSir:
PleaseallowMr.PedroRevilla,Jr.,whosespecimensignatureappearsbelow,andcompanytoenterthe
premises that you are securing located at the abovegiven address for the purpose of conducting an ocular
inspectionandverificationsurveyofthesame.
KindlyextendtoMr.Revillayourusualcourtesiesandassistanceonthismatter.Thankyou.
Verytrulyyours,
BANKOFTHEPHILIPPINEISLANDS
AsTrusteesFor
PhilippineRemnantsCo.,Inc.
By:
(Sgd.)
ROLANDOV.AROMIN
AssistantVicePresident
(Sgd.)
PEDROREVILLA,JR.
[8]

ExhibitDreadsasfollows:
July9,1988

BankofthePhilippineIslands
BankofP.I.Building
AyalaAvenue,Makati,
MetroManila
ATTN:Mr.AlfonsoR.Zamora
VicePresident
and
Mr.FernandoJ.SisonIII
Asst.VicePresident
Gentlemen:
I refer to the authority you gave me on June 23, 1988, in your capacity as Trustee of the Philippine
RemnantsCo.,Inc.,inconnectionwiththesaleofone(1)parcelofland,locatedalongPasigBoulevard,Bagong
Ilog,Pasig,MetroManila,withanareaof33,056squaremetersandcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.
493122.
IampleasedtoinformyouthatIhaveprocuredabuyerfortheabovedescribedpropertyinthenameof
Limketkai Sons Milling Inc., with office address at LimketkaiBuilding, Greenhills, SanJuan, Metro Manila and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

7/11

3/11/2015

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

representedbyitsExecutiveVicePresident,Mr.AlfonsoLim.
Itisunderstoodtherefore,thatpursuanttomyauthority,Ishallbepaidabrokersfeeof2%ofthegross
purchasepriceintheeventthesaletotheabovenamedbuyerisconsummated.
Verytrulyyours,
(Sgd.)
PedroP.Revilla,Jr.
[Note:Italicssupplied]
[9]

ExhibitEhasthesesalientportions:

Gentlemen:
ThisconfirmsourconversationthismorningregardingthepurchaseofaparceloflandinBarrioBagong
Ilog,MunicipalityofPasig,coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.493122oftheRegistryofDeedsofRizal,
(specified therein as having an area of 33,946 sq. m. minus 890 sq. m. previously sold to the Republic of the
Philippines, or a net area of 33,056 sq. m.), registered in your name as trustee of the Philippine Remnants
Company.Specifically,thisconfirmsyouroffertosellthesaidpropertyatOneThousand(P1,000.00)Pesosper
squaremeter,andouracceptanceinprincipleofthatoffer,subjecttothefollowingterms.
a) We are to give an initial amount equivalent to Ten (10%) Percent of the total purchase price as
earnestmoney
b)Thebalanceistobepaidbyuswithinninety(90)daysfromtheexecutionoftheagreement
c)If the balance is not paid within the abovestated period, by reason of any cause other than those
mentionedinparagraphs
(d),(e)and(f)below,Twenty(20%)PercentofTheTen(10%)Percentpaidunderparagraph(a)shallbe
forfeited in your favor, the remaining Eighty (80%) is to be refunded to us in the event the nonpayment of the
said balance is caused by nonperformance of any of the stipulations in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) below, the
entiresumpaidasearnestmoneyshallberefundedtous
d)TheTitleofthepropertyshallbefreefromallliensandencumbrancesandthepropertyitselffreefrom
allsquatters
e)TheBPIastrusteetitleholderistowarrantthatitthelegalrightandtitletotransferownershiptous
f) Physical possession by us upon the payment of the Ten (10%) Percent referred to in paragraph (a)
above
Anticipatingyourfavorableaction,wethankyouforyourpromptattentionandearlyreply.
Verytrulyyours,
LIMKETKAISONSMILLING,INC.
[Note:Italicsadded](Sgd.)
ALFONSOU.LIM
ExecutiveVicePresident
[10]

ExhibitFstates:
Attention:Mr.AlfonsoU.Lim
ExecutiveVicePresident

Gentlemen:
Re:Bo.BagongIlog(Pasig)Property
In connection with subject property, we regret to inform you that the Banks Trust Committee did not
approveyourproposaltopurchasesaidpropertyunderthetermsandconditionsofyourlettertoourMr.MerlinA.
Albanodated11July1988.instead,theTrustCommitteeinstructedustoconsideroffersfromotherinterested
parties.
In a meeting held on 20July1988, Senior Management instructed us to offer the same property to all
interestedbuyersunderthefollowingtermsandconditions:
a.15%downpaymentuponnotificationofacceptancebyBPI
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

8/11

3/11/2015

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

b.balancepayableuponsigningoftheDeedofSale
c.pricetoBPIshallbenetofbrokerscommission
d. the party with the best price shall have five (5)days within which to pay the downpayment,
otherwise,thepartywiththenextbestpriceshallbeentertained.
Shouldyoustillbeinterestedinsubjectproperty,kindlysubmittousnotlaterthan12:00noonof22July
1988yourwrittenoffertogetherwiththepricepersquaremeter.TheBankshallnotentertainproposalsreceived
aftersaidcutofftime.
It is understood, however, that acceptance of any offer is still subject to the approval of the Beneficial
OwnerofthepropertyaswellastheTrustCommitteeoftheBank.
Verytrulyyours,
(Sgd.)(Sgd.)
ALFONSORZAMORAFERNANDOJ.SISONIII
VicePresidentAsst.VicePresident
[Note:Italicsadded]
[11]

ExhibitGquotedinfullisasfollows:
July22,1988

TheChairman
TrustCommittee
BankofthePhilippineIslands
Makati,MetroManila
DearSir:
Weare,inreceiptoftheletterdatedJuly20,1988,signedbyMr.AlfonsoZamoraandMr.FernandoJ.
SisonIII,copyofwhichweareheretoattaching.
PleaseconsiderourletterofJuly21,1988addressedtoMr.XavierP.Loinaz,BankPresident,andcopy
furnishedyourcommittee,asourreplythereto.
Wearetherefore,herebyadoptingandreiteratingourformeroffertobuythelotofP1,000.00persquare
meterbutoncashbasis.
Verytrulyyours,
(Sgd.)
LIMKETKAISONSMILLING,INC.
(Sgd.)
ALFONSOU.LIM
[Note:Italicsadded]ExecutiveVicePresident
[12]

ExhibitH'spertinentportionsreadasfollows:
Attention:Mr.AlfonsoU.Lim
Exec.VicePresident

Gentlemen:
Wereplytoyourletterdated29July1988addressedtotheChairmanofourTrustCommittee.Weagain
regrettoinformyouthatyouroffertopurchasetheBo.BagongIlog,Pasigproperty(TCT493122)atP1,000.00
persquaremeterhasnotbeenapproved,aspreviouslycommunicatedtoyouperourletterdated20July1988.
PertheDeedofTrustenteredintobyandbetweentheGrantorofsaidpropertyandourselves,theBank
asTrusteeisdutybound.intheeventofsaleoftheproperty,toselectthetermsandconsiderationitdeemsto
bemostadvantageoustotheGrantor.The30day authority given to your broker also presupposed that during
saidperiod,theBankonitsownwouldalsoconsiderotheroffers.Thisiswhynooffertopurchasewasdeemed
finalandaccepteduntilformallyapprovedbytheTrustCommittee.
xxxxxxxxx
Verytrulyyours,
(Sgd.)(Sgd.)
NELSONM.BONAFERNANDOJ.SISONIII
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

9/11

3/11/2015

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

VicePresidentAsst.VicePresident
[Note:Emphasisadded]
[13]

ExhibitIpertinentlyprovides:
August8,1988

Mr.NelsonM.Bona
VicePresident
and
Mr.FernandoJ.SisonIII
Asst.VicePresident
BANKOFTHEPHILIPPINEISLANDS
Manila
Gentlemen:
This refers to your letter of 2 August 1988 regarding our agreement to purchase the Barrio Bagong flog
propertyunderTCTNo.493122atP1,000.00persquaremeter.
xxxxxxxxx
UndertheaforequotedprovisionoftheDeedofTrust,yourBankasTrustee,hastheabsoluteauthority
to sell and dispose of the property under trust without consulting the Grantor as to price and terms. Moreover,
under said quoted stipulation, the Bank may engage the services of a real estate broker or brokers under such
termsandconditionswhichtheTrusteemaydeemproper.Consequently,on23June1988,youauthorizedMr.
Pedro P. Revilla, Jr. as broker to sell the property covered by Title No. 493122 on a firstcome firstserve
basis as per written authority signed by Mr. Fernando J. Sison III and Mr. Alfonso R. Zamora in behalf of the
BankasTrusteeofPhilippineRemnantsCo.,Inc.
Wewouldliketoinviteyourkindattentionthatwearethefirstcomeofferorofthelot.And,whilethe
price mentioned in the authority granted to Mr. Revilla is P1,000.00 per square meter, nonetheless, in the
negotiations between us and your responsible bank officials done in the presence of Mr. Revilla, the price per
squaremeterwasfinallyagreedatP1,000.00.
True, we requested for payment of the price on terms but, should the terms we requested be not
acceptedbyyourbank,wewerereadytopayincashperourunderstandingwithyourMr.AlbanoandMr.Aromin
andwhichwehaveclearlymadeknowninourJuly22,1988letters.Asamatteroffact,evenbeforeJuly21and
22,1988wepersonallytenderedacheckfortheentirepurchasepricetoMr.Albanobutherefusedtoacceptthe
check because, according to him, the authority to transact the sale was taken away from him. The same
proposaltopayincashwasmadebyusinameetingwithMr.Bona,Mr.SisonandotherBankofficials,andwe
weretoldthatthematterwillberesolvedbytheBankofficialsconcernedinduetimebutnothingpositivecame
about.WearestillreadytobuythesubjectpropertyatP1,000.00persquaremeteroncashbasis.
xxxxxxxxx
Through this letter we would like to make known to your Bank that we maintain our position that there
has been a perfected contract between your Bank as Trustee and our Corporation insofar as the sale of the
propertytousisconcernedbecauseinthewrittenauthoritygrantedbyyoutoMr.PedroP.Revilla,Jr.signedby
no less than the Assistant VicePresident and VicePresident of the Bank as Trustee, there is no condition
imposed that the sale of the property transacted by him under said authority is subject to the approval of the
TrustCommittee.
We hope your Bank will understand our position and we expect that the sale of the subject lot in our
favorbeconsummatedasearlyaspossible.
Verytrulyyours,
(Sgd)
ALFONSOU.LIM
Exec.VicePresident/Director
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]

244SCRA320,328,citingVelascov.CourtofAppeals,51SCRA439(1973).
SeeExhibitsFandH.
SeeExhibitE.
SeeLoganv.Phil.AcetyleneCo.,33Phil.177Beaumontv.Prieto,41Phil.670Zaycov.Serra,44 Phil.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

10/11

3/11/2015

LimketkaiSonsMillingInc.vs.CA:118509:March29,1996:Francisco,J.:ThirdDivision

326.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]

[26]
[27]
[28]

SeeExhibitF.
SeeParedesv.Espino,22SCRA1000.
CADecision,pp.1112Rollo,pp.5455.
Rule130,Section9,RulesofCourt.
43SCRA473.
34Phil.739.
Abrenica,(supra)atp.746,citingKreighv.Sherman,105Ill.4946Am.Dig.,CenturyEd.,932.
InTalosigv.Vda.deNieba,forinstance,adeedofsaleexecutedbetweenthepartieswasundisputed,as
well as the existence of receipts evidencing payment while in Abrenica v. Gonda and De Gracia,
counselforthedefendantneverraisedanyobjectiontotheexaminationofthewitnesseswhichelicited
testimonytendingtoprovethecontract.Onlyaftertheexaminationwasterminateddidcounselmoveto
strikeoutallthegiventestimony.
CADecision,pp.1314Rollo,pp.5657PedroRevilla,Jr.,TSN,February28,1989,pp.35.
MemorandumForRespondentBankofthePhil.Islands,April24,1995,p.16Rollo,p.229.
CADecision,pp.1213Rollo,pp.5556.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/118509.htm

11/11