TIBURCIO LEOQUINCO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the City of
Manila on the 15th day of May, 1924, against the Postal Savings Bank
(El Banco Postal de Ahorros) and its board of directors composed of
Cipriano Unson, Miguel Unson, Antonio Villa-Real, Jose Topacio, Ben F.
Wright, and Jose Alba.

Plaintiff alleged that he was the
highest bidder at a public auction held by the defendants on March 31,
1924, for the sale of a piece or parcel of land belonging to the Bank,
situated at Navotas, Province of Rizal, having offered P27,000 for said
property; that in Resolution No. 31 of the board of directors of the
Bank, authorizing the sale of said property at public auction, as well
as in the public notice announcing said sale, the board of directors
have expressly reserved to themselves the right to reject any and all
bids; that as such highest bidder at said auction, he wrote a letter to
the defendants on May 9, 1924, advising that he was ready to tender
payment for the land as soon as the deed of sale of the same in his
favor is executed and delivered by the defendants; that the defendants
refused to execute the deed in spite of requests made therefor by him;
that said refusal caused him damages in the sum of P25,000 more or
less. Plaintiff prayed that said defendants be ordered to execute and
deliver the deed of sale of said land in his favor, and to pay him
damages amounting to P25,000, and the costs.

The defendants
answered, admitting the allegations of the complaint, except the
conclusions of law therein set forth and the damages alleged to have
been suffered by plaintiff. As a special defense, the defendants
alleged that in Resolution No. 31 of the board of directors of the
Postal Savings Bank, authorizing the sale at public auction of the
property in question, as well as in the notice announcing said sale,
the defendants expressly reserved to themselves “the right to reject
any and all bids,” and that they never accepted the bid or offer of the
plaintiff. The defendants prayed for relief from the complaint, with
costs against the plaintiff.

Upon the issue thus presented
the cause was brought on for trial, at the conclusion of which and
after a careful consideration of the evidence adduced pro and con, the
Honorable C. A. Imperial, judge, rendered a judgment holding that the
plaintiff had not established his case, and dismissed the complaint
without costs. From said judgment the plaintiff appealed, and now
raises several questions of both fact and law.

There is no
dispute as to the facts of this case which are essential to the
decision thereof. They are clearly set forth in the pleadings and
admitted by both parties. It only remains to be added that the
defendants not only did not accept the plaintiff’s bid, but on May 10,
1924, they wrote him a letter, advising him that his bid was rejected
by the board of directors at its meeting of May 6, 1924.

There is absolutely no merit in this appeal. It may be summarily
disposed of, without need for a discussion of the errors assigned by
appellant’s counsel. Appellant set forth and admitted in his pleadings
that in the resolution adopted by the board of directors authorizing
the sale at public auction of the land, as well as in the notice
announcing the auction, the appellees had expressly reserved to
themselves the right to reject any and all bids. By taking part in the
auction and offering his bid, the appellant voluntarily submitted to
the terms and conditions of the auction sale, announced in the notice,
and clearly acknowledged the right so reserved to the appellees. The
appellees, making use of that right, rejected his offer. Clearly, the
appellant has no ground of action to compel them to execute a deed of
sale of the land in his favor, nor to compel them to accept his bid or
offer. “The owner of property offered for sale at auction has the right
to prescribe the manner, conditions and terms of sale, and where these
are reasonable and are made known to the buyer, they are binding upon
him, and he cannot acquire a title in opposition to them, and against
the consent of the owner. * * *” (Farr vs. John, 23 Iowa, 286; Batemann, on Auctions, p. 2; 6 Corpus Juris, p. 827.)

The owner of property offered for sale either at public or private
auction has the right to prescribe the manner, conditions and terms of
such sale. He may provide that all of the purchase price shall be paid
at the time of the sale or any portion thereof, or that time will be
given for the payment. (Blossom vs. Milwaukee and Chicago Railroad Co., 3 Wallace [U. S.], 196.)

The conditions of a public sale, announced by an auctioneer or the
owner of the property at the time and place of the sale, are binding
upon a purchaser, whether he knew them or not. (Kennell vs. Boyer, 144 Iowa, 303; Vanleer vs. Fain, 6 Humphrey [Tenn.], 104.)

Therefore, the sentence appealed from should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.