Case Digest: Mendoza et. al. vs. Comple, G.R. No. L-19311

Mendoza et. al. vs. Comple, G. R. No. L-19311, October 29, 1965

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

The plaintiffs have appealed from the order of Judge Honorio Romero of the CFI Batangas, that dismissed their action to require defendant to comply with their alleged contract of purchase and sale of a parcel of land.

The material allegations of the complaint are the following: (4) That, the plaintiffs were at first reluctant to purchase the said parcel of land; (5) That, after a series of negotiations ... upon the insistence of the defendant that the plaintiffs purchase the said parcel of land, the defendant finally agreed to sell to the plaintiffs the parcel of land in question plus the additional area of twenty-four square meters above stated, for the price of P4,500.00, Philippine currency; and upon their mutual agreement, the plaintiffs were given by the defendant a period of three weeks from April 15, 1961 and until May 6, 1961, within which to raise the amount of P4,500.00; (6) That, it was likewise agreed upon between the plaintiffs and the defendants that the final deed of conveyance will be executed by the latter in favor of the former as soon as the plaintiffs shall be ready with the cash within the period given them; (7) That, on May 1, 1961, before the expiration of the period of three weeks given to the plaintiffs by the defendant on aforesaid, the said defendant came over to the house of the plaintiffs, and then and there advised them that she is calling off the deal and that she is backing out from their agreement.

ISSUE

Whether or not the defendant can be compelled to comply with their alleged contract of purchase and sale.

RULING

No.

Under the law (Art 1324, NCC), when the offerer has allowed the offeree certain period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any time before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is founded upon a consideration, as something paid or promised. 

In this case, there is no allegation that plaintiffs had agreed to buy the land. So, according to the facts described in the complaint, if plaintiffs did not produce or have the money on or before May 6, 1961, no liability attached to them. Neither could defendant (if she so elected) compel them to buy. As there was no such "distinct" consideration (no allegation as to it), the defendant was not bound to stand by her promise even if accepted, before withdrawal.