Title
Paranaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 111538
Decision Date
Feb 26, 1997
A lessee's right of first refusal was violated when properties were sold without offering them at the same terms, prompting Supreme Court intervention.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 223505)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. (petitioner) – Philippine corporation, lessee of eight parcels in Parañaque, Metro Manila.
    • Catalina L. Santos (respondent) – registered owner of said parcels, represented by attorney-in-fact Luz B. Protacio.
    • David A. Raymundo (respondent) – subsequent purchaser of the parcels.
  • Lease and Assignments
    • November 28, 1977 – Frederick Chua leases the properties from Santos (registered lease).
    • February 12, 1979 – Chua assigns rights to Lee Ching Bing with Santos’s conformity (registered).
    • August 6, 1979 – Bing assigns rights to petitioner with Santos’s conformity (registered).
    • Paragraph 9 of the lease grants petitioner “first option or priority to buy” if property is sold, and obliges buyer/mortgagee to respect the lease.
  • Alleged Breaches
    • September 21, 1988 – Santos sells the parcels to Raymundo for ₱5,000,000 without offering petitioner its first option.
    • March 5, 1989 – Santos’s letter informs petitioner of the sale; petitioner protests and Santos reconveys and then offers sale to petitioner at ₱15,000,000.
    • May 8, 1989 – Petitioner offers ₱5,000,000 within ten days.
    • May 15, 1989 – Santos resells to Raymundo for ₱9,000,000 without re-offering petitioner.
    • Petitioner alleges collusion, simulation of sale, and suffers damage to its ₱3,000,000 improvements, moral and exemplary damages.
  • Procedural History
    • March 19, 1991 – Petitioner files complaint for annulment of sale, specific performance, damages, attorney’s fees.
    • September 2, 1991 – RTC, Makati (Branch 57) dismisses for lack of cause of action, finding Santos complied by offering at ₱15 M.
    • March 29, 1993 – CA affirms, adding no stipulation as to price computation.
    • Petition for review under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Does the complaint state a valid cause of action for breach of the “first option or priority to buy”?
  • Must the grantee of such a right be offered the same terms and conditions as a third-party buyer?
  • Can a right of first refusal be enforced by an action for specific performance?
  • Did the assignment of the lease include the option to purchase?
  • Is Raymundo a proper party and privy to the lease obligations?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.