SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SEPARATE OPINION

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.,

After a meticulous evaluation of the antecedent facts in these cases I respectfully submit that private respondents submission that the sum of P300,000 was intended as partial payment of the purchase price; it was received by Alice Dizon for and in behalf of Fidela Dizon, mother of petitioners; and that Fidela Dizon ratified the act of Alice by accepting the cashiers check representing that consideration drawn in favor of Fidela Dizon, and in encashing it. Neither Alice nor Fidela returned the money.

Therefore, there was indeed, a perfected sale in favor of private respondent of, at the very least, the rights, shares and participation in the property in question to private respondent. Hence, private respondent became a co-owner of the property as regards Fidelas co-owner.

That private respondent exercised its option to buy beyond the term of the original terms of the lease contract is then rendered academic. For, by accepting the P300,000 as partial payment of the land in question and using it for her own benefit and advantages, Fidela effectively estopped herself from insisting or a technicality.

I therefore vote to grant, pro hac vice, the second motion for reconsideration and to modify the decision by now declaring that Fidela Dizon is bound by the perfected sale to private respondent of, at least, her rights, participation, or share in the property in question.