Title
Mendoza vs. Comple
Case
G.R. No. L-19311
Decision Date
Oct 29, 1965
Plaintiffs sued defendant to enforce a land sale agreement. Court ruled defendant’s promise unenforceable due to lack of distinct consideration, allowing withdrawal before payment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19311)

Jurisdiction and Venue

The case was brought before the Batangas Court of First Instance, presided over by Judge Honorio Romero. The plaintiffs appealed from an order dismissing their action to compel the defendant to comply with the alleged contract.

Factual Allegations

The plaintiffs contended that, after some reluctance, they agreed to purchase a parcel of land from the defendant for a price of P4,500.00. The agreement purportedly included a period from April 15, 1961, to May 6, 1961, during which the plaintiffs were to raise the necessary funds. The plaintiffs also alleged that it was agreed the final deed of conveyance would be executed once they could provide the cash.

Defendant's Withdrawal and Legal Position

On May 1, 1961, before the end of the stipulated period, the defendant informed the plaintiffs that she was rescinding the agreement. The court examined the complaint, noting that it lacked any assertion that the plaintiffs had definitively agreed to purchase the land. Consequently, if the plaintiffs were unable to produce the necessary funds by May 6, 1961, they held no liability to proceed with the purchase.

Contractual Obligations and Legal Findings

The court analyzed the terms articulated in the complaint, which illustrated a unilateral promise on the part of the defendant—conditional on the plaintiffs securing the appropriate funds. According to Article 1479 of the New Civil Code, such promises are only binding when supported by consideration that is distinct from the price of the sale. In this case, the absence of any distinct consideration indicated that the defendant had the legal right to withdraw her offer.

Court’s Conclusion on Precedents

The lower court supported its decision with references to established jurisprudence, specifically citing cases such as Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. and Navarro v. Sugar Producers Association.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.