Dizon vs CA

FACTS:
1. Respondent Overland Express Lines, Inc.
entered into a contract of lease with an option
to buy with the petitioners involving 1,755.80
square meter parcel of land situated in Diliman,
Quezon City. The term of the lease was for 1
year. Respondent was granted an option to
purchase for the amount of 3,000 per square
meter.
2. respondent failed to pay the increased rental
and petitioners filed an action for ejectment.
3. MTC ordered respondent to vacate the
leased premises and pay representing rentals
and or damages for reasonable compensation
for the use and occupation of the premises
during the illegal detainer.
4. Respondent filed for a petition praying for
the issuance of a restraining order enjoining the
enforcement of the judgement and lack of its
jurisdiction.
5. RTC rendered to dismissed the case while CA
uphold the jurisdiction in the ejectment case. It
was also concluded that there was a perfected
contract of sale between the parties on the
leased premises and the pursuant to the option
to buy agreement. respondent acquired the
rights of a vendee in contract of sale.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a perfected contract of
sale between the parties.

Held:
The contract of sale is perfected at the moment
there is a meeting of minds upon the thing
which is the object of the contract and upon the
price. From that moment, parties reciprocally
demand performance. Thus, the elements of a
contract are consent, object, and price in
money or its equivalent. It bears stressing that
the absence of any these elements negates the
existence of a perfected contract of sale. Sale is
a consensual contract who alleges it must show
its existence by competent proof.
Respodent gave 300,000 to petitioners on the
erroneous presumption that he said amount
perfected a contract of sale pursuant to the
contract of lease with option to buy. There was
no valid consent by the petitioners on the
supposed sale entered by Dizon, as petitioners
agent. As provided in New civil code, there was
no showing that petitioners consented to the
act of Dizon nor authoried her to act on their
behalf.respondent should have done was
ascertain the extent of authority of Dizon.
Respondent cannot seek relief on the supposed
agency.
Wherefore, petitioners are ordered to refund to
respondent the amount of 300,000 which they
received through Dizon.