1. Ang Yu Asuncion vs CA GR No.

109125 December 2, 1994

Ang Yu Asuncion, Arthur Go, and Keh Tiong, petitioners, are lessees of
residential and commercial spaces owned by respondent Bobby and Rose Cu
Unjieng located in Binondo, Manila. Before October 9, 1986, the lessors
informed the petitioners that they are offering to sell the premises and
considering that they have been renting it since 1935, they are being given
the priority to acquire the same. Cu Unjieng offered a price of 6M while Ang
Yu made a counter offer of 5M. Petitioners wrote to the lessors asking the
latter to specify the terms and conditions of the offer to sell but they
received no reply. The petitioners then came to the knowledge that the
property is about to be sold to another party. They then filed a complaint
compelling the lessor to sell the property to them. Defendants filed their
answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and interposing a
special defense of lack of cause of action. While the case was still pending,
the respondents executed a Deed of Sale transferring the property to Buen
Realty and Development Corporation.

Issue: Whether or not Cu Unjieng should be compelled to sell the property to

the petitioners.

No, respondents should not be compelled to sell the petitioners. According to

Art. 1156 of the Civil Code, an obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to
do, and not to do. It is also provided that an obligation has elements,
namely, the active and passive subject, the object of the prestation, and the
juridical tie that binds the parties to the obligation. According to Art. 1157 of
the same Code, contract is one of the sources of obligation. However, in
order for a contract to become valid, it requires that there is a meeting of the
minds of both parties. Since there is no meeting of the minds that existed
between the parties, there is no obligation. Thus, claim for specific
performance will not be possible.
 2. Agoncillo vs. Javier GR No. L-12611 September 20, 1918

On February 27, 1904, appellants Anastasio, Jose, and Florencio Alano

executed a document in favor of the plaintiff Da. Marcelina Mario with an
oath that they will pay to the latter the amount of P2,730.50; and that in
order to secure such payment they mortgage the house and lot situated on
calle Evangelista to the plaintiff, that they will cede the said house and lot to
the latter and in case that the property will not be sufficient to cover the
amount of their indebtedness, Anastasio will also mortgage his four parcels
of land situated in San Isidro. However, was not able to pay the amount
except the total amount of P200 in the year 1908. Following this,
proceedings upon the administration of his estate were held in the Court of
First Instance in Batangas wherein the court appointed an administrator and
a committee to hear claims. However, no claims were presented to the court
until the expiration of its notice on March 24, 1915. The proceeding was
terminated on November 8, 1915. On April 27, 1916, Da. Marcelina Mario
made a statement claiming that she was a creditor of the deceased and
asserting that she secures a mortgage of a real estate belonging to the said
deceased. The court reopened the proceedings and appointed Javier as the
administrator of the estate. The appellants objected to the appointment of
Javier but of no avail. The appellants contended that the document they have
executed is merely a loan and is not effective to create a mortgage of effect.
The court then ruled that indeed the mortgage mentioned in the said
contract is invalid and the principal undertaking evidenced by such
document is merely the payment of money. However, the Supreme Court
believed that the agreement to convey the house and lot in case of failure to
pay money is perfectly valid because the document is an undertaking that if
the debt is not paid in money, it will be paid in another way. Also,
10. Adille vs CA G.R. No. L-44546 January 29, 1988

Felisa Azul is the owner of a land in Legaspi City, Albay. Petitioner Rustico Adile is
her child in her first marriage while respondents are her children with her second
marriage. During her lifetime, Felisa sold the property in pacto de retro with a three-
year repurchase period. However, she died before she could repurchase the land.
Adile repurchased the property and executed a deed of extra-judicial partition with
his claim that he alone is the heir of Felisa. Respondents filed a case for partition
claiming that Adile cannot claim exclusive ownership of the entire property
considering that he is only a co-owner.

Issue: Whether or not Adile acted as a negotiorum gestor.

YES. Adile had acted as a negotiorum gestor when he repurchased the property in
behalf of his co-owners or co-heirs. Under Art. 2144 of the Civil Code, whoever
voluntarily takes charge of the agency or management of the business or property
of another without any power from the latter, is obliged to continue the same until
the termination of the affair and its incidents, or to require the person concerned to
substitute him, if the owner is in a position to do so. However, petitioner is guilty of
fraud. As provided for in Art. 1456, if property is acquired through mistake or fraud,
the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust
for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.