G.R. No. 168325 - Tuazon vs. Del Rosario-Suarez

Lourdes Q. Del Rosario-Suarez owned a 1,211 sqm parcel in Quezon City (TCT No. RT-56118).
On June 24, 1994, she leased the parcel to Roberto D. Tuazon for three years (March 1994–February 1997).
By letter dated January 2, 1995, Lourdes offered to sell the lot to Roberto at ₱37,541,000.00, granting him “not for 2 years or more” to decide and shoulder transfer expenses.

On June 19, 1997 (after lease expiration and beyond the two-year offer period), Lourdes sold the property to Catalina R. Suarez-De Leon, Wilfredo De Leon, Miguel L. S. De Leon, and Rommel L. S. De Leon for ₱2,750,000.00 (TCT No. 177986).
The new owners, through attorney-in-fact Guillerma L. Sandico-Silva, filed an unlawful detainer before the MeTC of Quezon City. On August 30, 2000, the MeTC ordered Roberto to vacate.

While the ejectment appeal was pending, on November 8, 2000, Roberto filed before the RTC a complaint for annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale, reconveyance, damages, and preliminary injunction; he also registered a lis pendens.
The RTC (Branch 101, Quezon City) rendered judgment on November 18, 2002: it dismissed Roberto’s complaint for lack of merit, held the sale valid, and awarded damages and attorney’s fees to respondents.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 78870 (May 30, 2005), affirmed the RTC decision.
Roberto filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, advancing (a) breach of his “right of first refusal” and (b) alleged sanctionable failure of Lourdes to file an appellee’s brief.

Did the January 2, 1995 letter constitute an option contract or a “right of first refusal”?
Does the appellee’s failure to file her brief in the Court of Appeals warrant sanctions or automatic dismissal?