This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-03-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Upon the other hand, a right of first refusal is a contractual grant, not of the sale of a property, but of the first priority to buy the property in the event the owner sells the same. [28] As distinguished from an option contract, in a right of first refusal, while the object might be made determinate, the exercise of the right of first refusal would be dependent not only on the owner's eventual intention to enter into a binding juridical relation with another but also on terms, including the price, that are yet to be firmed up. [29] | |||||
|
2007-03-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The only issue left for resolution is whether RMVC indeed completed 51.48% of the project as it alleged in its Amended Complaint[16] to entitle it to the actual damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. This is a factual question which this Court, as a general rule, cannot pass upon, its jurisdiction in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals by way of petition for review under Rule 45 being limited to reviewing or revising errors of law. However, there is in this case a clear conflict between the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court necessitating a review of this factual issue as an exception to the general rule.[17] | |||||