GR L 19311; (October, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19311 October 29, 1965
FILEMON H. MENDOZA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. AQUILINA COMPLE, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Batangas Court of First Instance dismissing their action to compel the defendant to comply with an alleged contract of purchase and sale of a parcel of land. The complaint alleged that after negotiations, the defendant agreed to sell the land to the plaintiffs for P4,500.00 and gave them a period of three weeks from April 15, 1961, until May 6, 1961, to raise the money. It was agreed that the final deed of conveyance would be executed once the plaintiffs had the cash ready within that period. However, on May 1, 1961, before the expiration of the three-week period, the defendant went to the plaintiffs’ house and informed them she was calling off the deal and backing out of the agreement. The lower court held the complaint merely described an accepted promise to sell, which could be withdrawn because it was not supported by a consideration distinct from the price.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant’s promise to sell the land, accepted by the plaintiffs but withdrawn before the expiration of the period given to raise the purchase price, is binding despite the absence of a consideration distinct from the price.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The allegations in the complaint merely constituted an undertaking by the defendant that if the plaintiffs had the amount of P4,500.00 on or before May 6, 1961, she would sell the lot to them. The plaintiffs accepted this promise. Under Article 1479 of the New Civil Code, such a promise to sell is binding upon the promisor only if it is supported by a consideration distinct from the price. Since the complaint contained no allegation of such distinct consideration, the defendant was not bound by her promise and could validly withdraw it before the plaintiffs raised the money. The Court applied the principles established in previous decisions, including South-western Sugar & Molasses Co. v. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co. and Navarro v. Sugar Producers Association.