Sanchez vs. Rigos GR. No. L-25494, June 14, 1972

Doctrine: An accepted unilateral promise can only have a binding effect if supported by a consideration which means that the option can still be withdrawn, even if accepted, if the same is not supported by any consideration. Case Title: Sanchez vs. Rigos GR. No. L-25494, June 14, 1972 Facts Plaintiff Nicolas Sanchez and defendant Severina Rigos executed an instrument entitled "Option to Purchase," a parcel of land amounting to P1,510.00 situated in the barrios of Abar and Sibot, municipality of San Jose, province of Nueva Ecija. Both agreed that within two (2) years from said date if Sanchez fails to exercise his right to buy the property, the said agreement will be terminated and elapsed. However, his payments were rejected by Mrs. Rigos. Petitioner deposited said amount with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija and commenced against the latter the present action, for specific performance and damages. As special defense, Mrs. Rigos alleged that the contract between the parties is a unilateral promise to sell, and the same being unsupported by any valuable consideration, by force of the New Civil Code, is null and void. The lower court rendered judgment for Sanchez, ordering Mrs. Rigos to accept the sum judicially consigned by him and to execute, in his favor, the requisite deed of conveyance. Mrs. Rigos was, likewise, sentenced to pay P200.00, as attorney's fees, and other costs. Hence, this appeal by Mrs. Rigos. Issue/s Whether an accepted unilateral promise to sell a determinate thing for a price certain, which is not supported by a consideration distinct from the price, is binding upon the promisor, considering the interplay between Article 1479, second paragraph, and Article 1324 of the Civil Code. Held No. The Court found that the instrument executed by the parties was indeed a unilateral promise to sell, as Sanchez did not "agree and committed himself" to buy the property. There was nothing in the contract to indicate that Rigos' promise to sell was supported by a consideration "distinct from the price" of the land. This is clearly inferred from the context of said article that a unilateral promise to buy or to sell, even if accepted, is only binding if supported by consideration. In other words, "an accepted unilateral promise can only have a binding effect if supported by a consideration which means that the option can still be withdrawn, even if accepted, if the same is not supported by any consideration. It is not disputed that the option is without consideration. It can therefore be withdrawn notwithstanding the acceptance of it by appellee. The option did not impose upon plaintiff the obligation to purchase defendant's property. Annex A is not a "contract to buy and sell." It merely granted plaintiff an "option" to buy. And both parties understood it, as indicated by the caption, "Option to Purchase," given by them to said instrument. Under the provisions thereof, the defendant "agreed, promised and committed" herself to sell the land therein described to the plaintiff for P1,510.00, but there is nothing in the contract to indicate that her agreement, promise and undertaking is supported by a consideration "distinct from the price" stipulated for the sale of the land.