Professional Documents
Culture Documents
August 9, 2005
NO.
YES.
Ratio:
1. The respondent was burdened to prove the mandatory requirement of a valid
and definite offer (Art 35 IRR of LGC) to the owner of the property before filing
its complaint and the rejection thereof by the latter. It is incumbent upon the
condemnor to exhaust all reasonable efforts to obtain the land it desires by
agreement. Failure to prove compliance with the mandatory requirement will
result in the dismissal of the complaint.
An offer is a unilateral proposition which one party makes to the other for
the celebration of a contract. It creates a power of acceptance permitting the
offeree, by accepting the offer, to transform the offerors promise into a
contractual obligation.
The offer must be complete, indicating with sufficient clearness the kind of
contract intended and definitely stating the essential conditions of the proposed
contract. An offer would require, among other things, a clear certainty on both
the object and the cause or consideration of the envisioned contract.
The respondent failed to prove that before it filed its complaint, it made a
written definite and valid offer to acquire the property for public use as an
access road. - Even if the letter was, indeed, received by the co-owners, the
letter is not a valid and definite offer to purchase a specific portion of the
property for a price certain. It is merely an invitation for only one of the coowners, Lorenzo Ching Cuanco, to a conference to discuss the project and the
price that may be mutually acceptable to both parties.
2. Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that its property can no longer
be expropriated by the respondent because it is intended for the construction of
a place for religious worship and a school for its members.
Judgment: Petition granted.
LOCGOV
DIGEST #34