Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Jovan Land v. CA & Eugenio Quesada, Inc.

Characteristics

Who:
1. Jovan Land is a corporation engaged in the real estate business.
2. Joseph Sy President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Jovan Land.
3. Eugenio Quesada an owner of the Q Building located on an 801 sq. m. lot at the corner of
Mayhaligue Street and Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila.

What:
1. Mayhaligue Property of Eugenio Quesada

Facts:
1. Joseph Sy through his co-petitioner Consolacion P. Medoza, learned that Quesada is selling his
Mayhaligue Property;
2. Sy sent Quesada an offer of P10.25m NOT accepted by Conrado Quesada (General Manager);
3. 2nd offer same price but he will shoulder the documentary stamp tax, transfer tax, registration
fees and notarial charges and a check for one million (1M) pesos drawn against the Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank as earnest money Rejected by Conrado Quesada;
4. 3rd offer for P12m, similar check for 1M as earnest money;
5. Annotated on the 3rd offer was the phrase Received original, 9-4-89 beside which appears the
signature of Conrado Quesada;
6. Petitioner believes that there already exists a valid, perfected agreement to sell the Mayhaligue
Property;
7. Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and collection of sum of money with
damages.

RTC
1. Ruled in favor of Eugenio Quesada;
2. That both parties have not gone through the negotiation stage;
3. There is no contract whatsoever that was perfected;
4. The complaint was dismissed for lack of cause of action

CA
1. Upheld the decision of the Trial Court.

SC
1. CA and RTC ruling were agreed;
2. That in order to have a valid contract of sale, all the essential elements must exist: Consent,
Object, Price or consideration;
3. That there was no consent in this case at all since the annotation does not mean that Eugenio
Quesada nor Conrado Quesada gave consent and accepted the offer;
4. Neither the check was received on the said date;

/YDR
5. That the receipt reveals that the same can neither be regarded as a contract of sale nor a
promise to sell;
6. There is neither written nor implied acceptance of the offer;
7. That it is merely a memorandum of receipt by the former to the latter;
8. That the element of consent is lacking and therefore there is neither valid nor enforceable
contract;
9. Oft-repeated doctrine;
10. Petition is denied.

/YDR