Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 693 views

    Eulogio Vs Clemente Apeles

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Veloso
    This case involves a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision regarding a contract for the lease and potential purchase of a property between the petitioner and respondents. The RTC originally ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered the respondents to execute a deed of sale for the property. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that the contract was unenforceable because no consideration was provided by the petitioner for the option to purchase the property. The Supreme Court denies the petition and affirms the Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing there was no consideration to support enforcing the option to purchase in the contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Eulogio Vs Clemente Apeles

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Veloso
    693 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision regarding a contract for the lease and potential purchase of a property between the petitioner and respondents. The RTC originally ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered the respondents to execute a deed of sale for the property. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that the contract was unenforceable because no consideration was provided by the petitioner for the option to purchase the property. The Supreme Court denies the petition and affirms the Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing there was no consideration to support enforcing the option to purchase in the contract.

    Original Description:

    Eulogio vs Clemente Apeles

    Original Title

    Eulogio vs Clemente Apeles

    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 petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision regarding a contract for the lease and potential purchase of a property between the petitioner and respondents. The RTC originally ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered the respondents to execute a deed of sale for the property. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that the contract was unenforceable because no consideration was provided by the petitioner for the option to purchase the property. The Supreme Court denies the petition and affirms the Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing there was no consideration to support enforcing the option to purchase in the contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Eulogio Vs Clemente Apeles

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Veloso
    This case involves a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision regarding a contract for the lease and potential purchase of a property between the petitioner and respondents. The RTC originally ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered the respondents to execute a deed of sale for the property. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that the contract was unenforceable because no consideration was provided by the petitioner for the option to purchase the property. The Supreme Court denies the petition and affirms the Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing there was no consideration to support enforcing the option to purchase in the contract.

    Copyright:

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

    PACURIBOT, Joanne Marie

    Case #270

    G.R. No. 167884, January 20, 2009

    ENRICO S. EULOGIO, petitioner


    vs
    SPOUSES CLEMENTE APELES and LUZ APELES, respondents

    Nature of the Action: Petitioner filed this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing
    the Decision Court of Appeals which reversed the Decision of the RTC of Quezon City. The
    RTC directed respondents, spouses Clemente and Luz Apeles to execute a Deed of Sale over a
    piece of real property in favor of the petitioner after the latters payment of full consideration
    therefore.

    Related facts: The real property in question consists of a house and lot situated at No. 87
    Timog Avenue, Quezon City (subject property). The lot has an area of 360.60 square meters,
    covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 253990 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Quezon
    City in the names of the spouses Apeles.

    The spouses Apeles leased the subject property to Arturo Eulogio, petitioners
    father. Upon Arturos death, the petitioner succeeded as lessor of the subject property. He used
    the subject property as his residence and place of business.

    The spouses Apeles and Enrico allegedly entered into a Contract of Lease with option
    to purchase involving the subject property. According to the said lease contract, Luz Apeles
    was authorized to enter into the same as the attorney-in-fact of her husband, Clemente,
    pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney executed by the latter in favor of the former on 24
    January 1979. The contract purportedly afforded the petitioner, before the expiration of the
    three-year lease period, the option to purchase the subject property for a price not
    exceeding P1.5 Million.

    ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner may acquire ownership of the property.

    Ruling: Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 20 December 2004 and Resolution dated 25
    April 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76933 are hereby AFFIRMED. No
    costs.

    Ratio Decidendi: In the present case, it is indubitable that no consideration was given by
    Enrico to the spouses Apeles for the option contract. The absence of monetary or any material
    consideration keeps the court from enforcing the rights of the parties under said option
    contract.
    Art. 1479. A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is
    reciprocally demandable.

    An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price


    certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration
    distinct from the price.

    You might also like