4/15/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Mañas Spouses filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals through its July 24, 2013 Resolution.[35] Thus, the Mañas Spouses filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari,[36] arguing that the trial court erred in granting the Motion to Dismiss based on "respondent's defenses and not on the ultimate facts alleged in the Complaint."[37] On October 23, 2013, this Court required respondents to file their comment.[38] In her Comment,[39] respondent Roselle maintains that the Lease Contract was not expressly renewed because petitioners had never notified the lessor that they intended to renew the contract.[40] Instead, she explains, the contract was only impliedly renewed, the manner of payment having been made on a monthly basis.[41] On the allegation that the sale is void due to her incapacity, respondent Roselle counters that petitioners cannot assail its validity since they stopped being the real parties-in-interest after failing to expressly renew the contract.[42] In addition, she points out that the action filed is for rescission of contract but what petitioners are asking for is the annulment of contract.[43] In an October 2, 2017 Resolution,[44] this Court required respondents Rosalina, Janet, and Anthony to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt for failing to comply with this Court's April 26, 2017 Resolution requiring them to file their comment. Respondents Rosalina, Janet, and Anthony later filed an Explanation with Manifestation[45] stating that after their counsel had withdrawn, they did not get the services of another lawyer due to financial constraints.[46] In any case, they stated that they were adopting respondent Roselle's Comment.[47] This Court accepted their explanation and dispensed with the filing of their comment.[48] On July 30, 2018, this Court required petitioners to file a reply.[49] In their Reply,[50] petitioners argue that the Lease Contract was expressly renewed, along with all the terms in the original contract, including the right of first refusal.[51] The issues for this Court's resolution are the following: First, whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Complaint's dismissal on the ground that it stated no cause of action. Subsumed here are the issues of whether or not the lease was impliedly renewed, and whether or not the renewal includes the right of first refusal; Second, whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that the Deed of Absolute Sale must be rescinded due to the incapacity of the vendee, respondent Ma. Therese Roselle Uy-Cua, at the time of the sale; and Finally, whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Complaint's dismissal for failure to comply with a condition precedent. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66171 6/14