Title
Limson vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 135929
Decision Date
Apr 20, 2001
Petitioner paid option money for land purchase but failed to timely accept within the 10-day period. Respondents sold the property to SUNVAR, who acted in good faith. No perfected contract; damages and fees unjustified.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135929)

Petitioner

Lourdes Ong Limson paid ₱20,000 on 31 July 1978 as “earnest money” and obtained a ten-day option to purchase the subject land for ₱34/sqm.

Respondents

• Lorenzo de Vera and Asuncion Santos-de Vera: Vendors who held title (TCT No. S-72946 as of 15 Sept 1978)
• Sunvar Realty Development Corporation and Tomas Cuenca, Jr.: Third-party purchaser who acquired title (TCT No. S-72377, 26 Sept 1978)

Key Dates

• 31 July 1978 – Payment of ₱20,000; ten-day option granted
• 4 Aug 1978 & 11 Aug 1978 – Unsuccessful meetings to consummate sale
• 23 Aug 1978 – Additional ₱36,170 in checks paid by petitioner for taxes and quitclaims
• 15 Sept 1978 – Deed of sale to Sunvar executed; petitioner’s adverse claim annotated
• 30 June 1993 – RTC decision in favor of petitioner
• 18 May 1998 – CA reverses RTC
• 19 Oct 1998 – CA denies reconsideration
• 20 Apr 2001 – SC decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (property rights; sanctity of contracts)
• Civil Code of the Philippines:
– Art. 1305 (consent as essential element)
– Art. 1315 (perfection by mere consent)
– Art. 1319 (certainty of offer and acceptance)
• Jurisprudence on option contracts (Adelfa Properties, Inc. v. CA, 240 SCRA 565)
• Rule 45, Rules of Court

Factual Background

Petitioner negotiated with the de Veras for a parcel they stated they owned, paid ₱20,000 as “earnest money,” and received a ten-day option to buy at ₱34/sqm. Respondents then disclosed a mortgage to the Ramoses and arranged multiple meetings (4 and 11 Aug 1978) to settle back taxes and obtain quitclaims. Petitioner advanced ₱36,170 on 23 Aug 1978 for those purposes. On 15 Sept 1978, despite petitioner’s adverse claim annotation, the de Veras sold to Sunvar, which obtained a new title.

Procedural History

RTC (30 June 1993): Annulled sale to Sunvar; ordered cancellation of its title; directed de Veras to convey to petitioner upon full payment; awarded attorney’s fees.
CA (18 May 1998): Reversed; lifted adverse claim; awarded nominal, exemplary damages and fees to respondents.
SC (20 Apr 2001): Denied review petition; affirmed CA but deleted all damages and attorney’s fees awards.

Issue

Whether the agreement between petitioner and the de Veras constituted a perfected contract to sell or merely an option contract, and consequently whether the sale to Sunvar was valid and in good faith.

Ruling

The contract was an option, not a perfected sale. Petitioner failed to accept within ten days; the de Veras validly sold to Sunvar in good faith. Awards of nominal, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to respondents were unwarranted.

Legal Analysis

  1. Nature of Option vs. Sale
    – An option is an unaccepted offer granting the right to buy within a fixed period upon payment of option money. It imposes no reciprocal obligation beyond the consideration for the privilege.
    – A contract to sell is perfected by concurrence of offer and acceptance, binding both parties to convey and pay.

  2. Character of the ₱20,000 Payment
    – Labelled “earnest money,” it functioned as option money: distinct consideration for an exclusive right to purchase, forfeitable if terms were unmet.
    – No clause treated it as part of the purchase price or bound petitioner to complete the sale.

  3. Absence of Timely Acceptance
    – No unequivocal acceptance occurred within ten days (by 10 Aug 1978). Meetings set by respondents and petitioner’s mere atten

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.