Villamor Vs Ca

SPOUSES JULIO D.
VILLAMOR AND MARINA VILLAMOR, vs.THE HON. The CA failed to give due consideration to the Villamors' evidence which shows
COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES MACARIA LABINGISA REYES AND that in 1969 the Villamor spouses bough an adjacent lot from the brother of
ROBERTO REYES, MacariaLabing-isa for only P18.00 per square meter which the Reyeses did not
rebut. Thus, expressed in terms of money, the consideration for the deed of
G.R. No. 97332 October 10, 1991 option is the difference between the purchase price of the 300 square meter
portion of the lot in 1971 (P70.00 per sq.m.) and the prevailing reasonable price
of the same lot in 1971.
In 1971, the Reyeses sold a portion of their lot in Caloocan City to the
spsVillamor. Later that year, they executed a Deed of Option wherein they
stated that they have offered the remaining portion of the lot for sale, and that Whatever it is, (P25.00 or P18.00) though not specifically stated in the deed of
the Villamor spouses agreed to buy the same. option, was ascertainable. The Villamor’s allegedly paying P52.00 per square
meter for the option may, as opined by the appellate court, be improbable but
The option to buy and sell was to be exercised ‘whenever the need of such sale improbabilities do not invalidate a contract freely entered into by the parties.
arises, either on our part or on the part of the spouses (Julio) Villamor and
Marina V. Villamor, at the same price of P70.00 per square meter.The Deed The "deed of option" entered into by the parties in this case had unique
also mentioned that the cause or the impelling reason on the part of Reyes features. Ordinarily, an optional contract is a privilege existing in one person,
executing the deed of option as appearing in the deed itself is the Villamor's for which he had paid a consideration and which gives him the right to buy, for
having agreed to buy the 300 square meter portion of private respondents' example, certain merchandise or certain specified property, from another
land at P70.00 per square meter "which was greatly higher than the actual person, if he chooses, at any time within the agreed period at a fixed price.
reasonable prevailing price."
The "deed of option" went on and stated that the sale of the other half would
In 1984, the Villamors offered to repurchase the portion of the lot they sold to be made "whenever the need of such sale arises, either on our (Reyeses) part
the Villamor spouses in 1971. However, the Villamor spouses decided they or on the part of the Spouses Julio Villamor and Marina V. Villamor. It appears
would rather buy the remaining portion and wanted to exercise their option as that while the option to buy was granted to the Villamors, the Reyeses were
provided for in the Deed of Option. In 1984, they filed a case for specific likewise granted an option to sell. In other words, it was not only the Villamors
performance against the Reyeses. who were granted an option to buy for which they paid a consideration. The
Reyeses as well were granted an option to sell should the need for such sale on
The RTC: ruled in favor of the Villamors and ordered the Reyeses to sell the their part arise.
remaining portion.
Ruling 2: No, the period to exercise the option not stipulated, hence, it is
The CA: rendered a decision reversing the decision of the trial court and deemed prescribed after 10 years
dismissing the complaint. The reversal of the trial court's decision was premised
on the finding of respondent court that the Deed of Option is void for lack of The Deed of Option did not provide for the period within which the parties may
consideration. demand the performance of their respective undertakings in the instrument.
The parties could not have contemplated that the delivery of the property and
Issue 1: WON there was a valid and distinct consideration for the option the payment thereof could be made indefinitely and render uncertain the
contract? status of the land. The failure of either parties to demand performance of the
obligation of the other for an unreasonable length of time renders the contract
Issue 2: WON the option may still be enforced? ineffective.
Ruling 1: Yes, The consideration in the contract was the price difference
Under Article 1144 (1) of the Civil Code, actions upon written contract must be
brought within ten (10) years. The Deed of Option was executed on November
11, 1971. The acceptance, as already mentioned, was also accepted in the same
instrument. The complaint in this case was filed by the Villamors on July 13,
1987, seventeen (17) years from the time of the execution of the contract.
Hence, the right of action had prescribed.
To allow the Villamors to demand the delivery of the property subject of this
case thirteen (13) years or seventeen (17) years after the execution of the deed
at the price of only P70.00 per square meter is iniquitous, considering the rise
of prices of real estate in Manila.

Villamor Vs Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villamor Vs Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villamor Vs Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPOUSES JULIO D.

You might also like