Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Ang Yu V

    Uploaded by

    Martin Fontanilla
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of residential and commercial properties owned by the defendants and leased by the plaintiffs. The defendants offered to sell the properties to the plaintiffs for 6 million pesos, while the plaintiffs counter-offered 5 million pesos in writing. However, the defendants did not provide any terms or conditions for the sale in writing. The plaintiffs later learned the defendants planned to sell the properties to someone else, so the plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking to enforce the sale to them. The trial court ruled there was no meeting of the minds or valid contract between the parties. The issues involved whether the parties had formed a valid contract for the sale of the properties and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce the sale to

    Copyright:

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

    Ang Yu V

    Uploaded by

    Martin Fontanilla
    28 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of residential and commercial properties owned by the defendants and leased by the plaintiffs. The defendants offered to sell the properties to the plaintiffs for 6 million pesos, while the plaintiffs counter-offered 5 million pesos in writing. However, the defendants did not provide any terms or conditions for the sale in writing. The plaintiffs later learned the defendants planned to sell the properties to someone else, so the plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking to enforce the sale to them. The trial court ruled there was no meeting of the minds or valid contract between the parties. The issues involved whether the parties had formed a valid contract for the sale of the properties and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce the sale to

    Original Title

    ANG YU V.docx

    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 involved a dispute over the sale of residential and commercial properties owned by the defendants and leased by the plaintiffs. The defendants offered to sell the properties to the plaintiffs for 6 million pesos, while the plaintiffs counter-offered 5 million pesos in writing. However, the defendants did not provide any terms or conditions for the sale in writing. The plaintiffs later learned the defendants planned to sell the properties to someone else, so the plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking to enforce the sale to them. The trial court ruled there was no meeting of the minds or valid contract between the parties. The issues involved whether the parties had formed a valid contract for the sale of the properties and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce the sale to

    Copyright:

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

    Ang Yu V

    Uploaded by

    Martin Fontanilla
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of residential and commercial properties owned by the defendants and leased by the plaintiffs. The defendants offered to sell the properties to the plaintiffs for 6 million pesos, while the plaintiffs counter-offered 5 million pesos in writing. However, the defendants did not provide any terms or conditions for the sale in writing. The plaintiffs later learned the defendants planned to sell the properties to someone else, so the plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking to enforce the sale to them. The trial court ruled there was no meeting of the minds or valid contract between the parties. The issues involved whether the parties had formed a valid contract for the sale of the properties and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to enforce the sale to

    Copyright:

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

    ANG YU V.

    CA

    FACTS:

    In this case, plaintiffs Ang Yu Asuncion et al., are tenants of residential and
    commercial spaces owned by defendants Unjieng. Later, the defendants offered to
    sell the premises to the plaintiffs. During the negotiation, the defendants offered the
    price of 6-million while the plaintiffs made a counter offer of 5-million and asked the
    defendants to put the said offer in writing to which the defendants acceded.
    Subsequently, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the defendants asking to specify the
    terms and conditions of the offer to sell but to no avail. Upon the information
    received by the plaintiffs that the defendants were about to sell the property, the
    plaintiffs filed a complaint for specific performance.

    The defendants interposed a defense of lack of cause of action. Later, the trial court
    rendered a decision stating that there was no meeting of the minds

    ISSUES:

    EQUITORIAL REALTY DEVEPOMENT V. MAYFAIR THEATER

    FACTS:

    In this case, respondent Mayfair Theater (MAYFAIR) and Carmelo &


    Bauermann Inc., (CARMELO) entered into a contract of lease where the former
    leased a portion of the latter’s property to put up a movie theater for a period of
    twenty (20) years. Two years later, the parties entered into a second lease contract
    where Mayfair leased another portion of Carmelo’s property. In paragraph 8 of both
    of the lease contracts it stated that in the event that the lessor desire to sell the
    leased premises the lessee shall have a 30-day exclusive option to purchase the
    same. Later, Carmelo sold the property to Equitorial. Hence, Mayfair filed an action
    for specific performance and annulment of sale.

    ISSUES:
    1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the option clause in
    contracts of lease is a right of first refusal.

    HELD:
    No, it is not an option clause or an option contract, but a contract of right of first
    refusalS

    You might also like