The fact that the mortgaged motor vehicle was delivered to him does
not necessarily mean that ownership thereof, as juridically contemplated by Tinanggap ko kay G. TAN SHUY ang halagang
dacion en pago, was transferred from appellant to appellee. In the absence of . (P420,000.00) salaping Filipino.
clear consent of appellee to the proferred special mode of payment, there can Inaako ko na isusulit sa kanya ang aking LUCAD at babayaran ko ang nasabing
be no transfer of ownership of the mortgaged motor vehicle from appellant to halaga. Kung hindi ako makasulit ng LUCAD o makabayad bago sumapit ang
appellee. If at all, only transfer of possession of the mortgaged motor vehicle ., 19 maaari niya akong ibigay sa may kapangyarihan. Kung ang
took place, for it is quite possible that appellee, as mortgagee, merely wanted pagsisingilan ay makakarating sa Juzgado ay sinasagutan ko ang lahat ng
to secure possession to forestall the loss, destruction, fraudulent transfer of kaniyang gugol.
the vehicle to third persons, or its being rendered valueless if left in the hands
of the appellant. [Sgd. by respondent]
Tan Shuy v. Sps. Maulawin (F2012) .
Topic: Dacion En Pago P................
Lagda
Doctrine: Dation in payment extinguishes the obligation to the extent of the
value of the thing delivered, either as agreed upon by the parties or as may
be proved, unless the parties by agreement express or implied, or by their The transactions between Tan Shuy and Guillermo were coursed through Tan
silence consider the thing as equivalent to the obligation, in which case the Shuys daughter Elena. She served as cashier in the business of Tan Shuy, who
obligation is totally extinguished. primarily prepared and issued the pesada. When shes absent, Vicente would
issue the pesada.
Facts: Tan Shuy is engaged in the business of buying copra and corn in the
4th district of Quezon Province. According to his son, Vicente Tan, whenever Vicente also helped Tan Shuy in buying copra and granting loans to customers
they would buy copra or corn from crop sellers, they would prepare and issue [copra sellers]. According to him, part of their agreement with Guillermo was
a pesada1 in their favor. When a pesada contained the annotation pd on the that they would put the annotation sulong on the pesada when partial
total amount of the purchase price, it meant that the crop delivered had payment on the loan had been made. But despite repeated demands,
already been paid for by Tan Shuy. Guillermo remitted only P23k in August 1998 and P5.5k in October 1998, or
atotal of P28.5K. Claiming that Maulawin had an outstanding balance of
Guillermo Maulawin is a farmer businessman engaged in buying and selling P391.5K and convinced that he no longer had any intention to pay, Ran Shuy
copra and corn. On July 10, 1997, Tan Shuy extended a loan of P420K to
Guillermo. In consideration thereof, Guillermo obligated himself to pay the
1
A pesada is a document containing details of the transaction, including
the date of sale, the weight of the crop delivered, the trucking cost, and
the net price of the crop
went to the Lupon Tagapamayapa. Failing to reach a settlement, he filed copra deliver is were to be used as installment payments for the loan.
acomplaint before the RTC. Guillermos copra deliveries were duly paid in cash. The pesadas were in fact
documentary receipts for those payments.
Maulawins Arguments:
Supreme Court Ruling:
1. Loan had already been paid in full.
Pursuant to Art. 1232 of the Civil Code, an obligation is extinguished by
2. He continuously delivered and sold copra to petitioner from April payment or performance. There is payment when there is delivery of money
1998 to April 1999. An oral arrangement that the net proceeds or performance of an obligation. Art. 1245 provides for a special mode of
thereof shall be applied as installment payments for the loan was payment known as dation in payment.
made. His deliveries amounted to P420,537.68 worth of copra.
Dation in payment extinguishes the obligation to the extent of the value of the
3. To bolster his claim, he presented copies of pesadas issued by Elena thing delivered, either as agreed upon by the parties or as may be proved,
and Vicente. The pesadas did not contain the notation "pd," which unless the parties by agreement express or implied, or by their silence
meant that actual payment of the net proceeds from copra deliveries consider the thing as equivalent to the obligation, in which case the obligation
was not given to him, but was instead applied as loanpayment. is totally extinguished. In this regard, the RTC made the following findings:
4. Tan Shuy filed a complaint because he got angry when Maulawin sold a) Pesadas from April 1998 to April 1999shows that Guillermo only gets
copra to other copra buyers. the payments for trucking while the total amount which represent
the total purchase price for the copras that he delivered to the
RTC: The net proceeds from Guillermo's copra deliveries -represented in plaintiff were all given to Elena Tan Shuy as installments for the loan
the pesadas, which did not bear the notation "pd" should be applied as he owed to plaintiff. Such claim was bolstered by the testimony of
installment payments for the loan. It Gave credence to the pesadas, as their Apolinario Cario which affirmed that he also sold copras to the
due execution and authenticity was established by Elena and Vicente. But the plaintiff Tan Shuy. Guillermo also said that he incurred indebtedness
RTC did not credit the net proceeds from 12 pesadas, as they were deliveries to Tan Shuy and whenever he delivered copras the amount of the
for corn and not copra. Guillermo testified that it was the net proceeds from copras sold were applied as payments to his loan.
the copra deliveries to be applied as installment payment for the loan. Thus,
P41,585.25, which corresponded to the net proceeds from corn deliveries, The CA fully subscribed to the findings of the RTC. The subsequent
should be deducted from the amount of P420,537.68claimed by Guillermo to arrangement between Tan Shuy and Guillermo can thus be considered as one
be the total value of his copra deliveries. There exists, therefore, a balance of in the nature of dation in payment. There was partial payment every time
P41,047.57 in Guillermos loan. Guillermo delivered copra to Tan Shuy, whenever he chose not to collect the
net proceeds of his copra deliveries, and instead applied the collectible as
CA: Affrirmed RTC installment payments for his loan from Tan Shuy.
Issue: WON the delivery of copra amounted to installment payments for the
loan obtained by Guillermo from Tan Shuy.
Held: YES.
Guillermo undertook two separate obligations: 1) Pay for the loan in cash; and
2) Sell lucad or copra. Since the written agreement did not specifically provide
for the application of the net proceeds from the deliveries for the loan, Tan
Shuy argues that he cannot be compelled to accept copra as payment for the
loan. The pesadas did not specifically indicate that the net proceeds from the
which should have been first fixed before the creditor could demand
its payment from the debtor
Reparations Commission v Universal Deep Sea Fishing (1978)
Application of Payment Ruling:
The Supreme Court found the terms of the contracts clear and left no doubt as
Doctrine: The rules contained in Articles 1252 to 1254 of judgment, Civil to the intent of the contracting parties that the first installment due 24 months
Code apply to a person owing several debts of judgment, same kind to a
after delivery was different from the first ten (10) equal yearly installment of
single creditor. They cannot be made applicable to a person whose obligation
the balance of the purchase price (which are not designated as "first",
as a mere surety is both contingent and singular, which in this case is the full
and faithful compliance with the terms of the contract of conditional "second", "third", etc., installments).
purchase and sale of reparations goods.
The obligation included the payment, not only of the first installment in the
amount of P53,643.00, but also of the ten (10) equal yearly installments of
Facts: P56,597.20 per annum. The amount of P10,000.00 was, indeed, deducted
from judgment, amount of P53,643.00, but then judgment, first of judgment,
The Reparations Commission awarded six (6) trawl boats to ten (10) equal yearly installments had also accrued, hence, no error was
the Universal Deep-Sea Fishing Corporation which were delivered committed in holding judgment, surety company to judgment, full extent of
two at a time, each delivery being covered by a Contract of its undertaking.
Conditional Purchase and Sale providing for identical schedules of
payments. The rules contained in Articles 1252 to 1254 of judgment, Civil Code apply to
a person owing several debts of judgment, same kind to a single creditor. They
The first installment representing 10% of the total cost was to be paid cannot be made applicable to a person whose obligation as a mere surety is
24 months after delivery and the balance of the total cost to be paid both contingent and singular, which in this case is the full and faithful
in ten (10) equal installments, which, in the schedule were numbered compliance with the terms of the contract of conditional purchase and sale of
as "1", "2", "3", etc., the first of which was due one year after the first reparations goods.
installment.
Universal alleged that there was an obscurity in the terms of the Re: Application of Payment
contracts in question which was caused by the plaintiff as to the
amounts and due dates of the first installments which should have DOCTRINE
been first fixed before the creditor could demand its payment from
the debtor, specifically referring to the schedule of payments which Under the law, if the debtor did not declare at the time he made the payment
allegedly indicated two (2) due dates for the payment of the first to which of his debts with the creditor the payment is to be applied, the law
installment. provided the guideline; i.e. no payment is to be applied to a debt which is not
yet due and the payment has to be applied first to the debt which is most
Issue: onerous to the debtor.
Whether there was an obscurity in the terms of the contracts which was caused FACTS: On December 27, 1990, petitioner Nereo Paculdo and respondent
by the plaintiff as to the amounts and due dates of the first installments Bonifacio Regalado entered into a contract of lease over a parcel of land with
a wet market building, located at Fairview Park, Quezon City. The contract was
for twenty five (25) years, commencing on January 1, 1991 and ending on As found by the lower court there was a letter sent by respondent to
December 27, 2015. For the first five (5) years of the contract beginning herein petitioner, dated November 19, 1991, which states that
December 27, 1990, Nereo would pay a monthly rental of P450,000, payable petitioners security deposit for the Quirino lot, be applied as partial
within the first five (5) days of each month with a 2% penalty for every month payment for his account under the subject lot as well as to the real
of late payment. estate taxes on the Quirino lot. Petitioner interposed no objection, as
evidenced by his signature signifying his conformity thereto.
Aside from the above lease, petitioner leased eleven (11) other property from
the respondent, ten (10) of which were located within the Fairview compound, Meanwhile, in an earlier letter, dated July 15, 1991, respondent
while the eleventh was located along Quirino Highway Quezon City. Petitioner informed petitioner that the payment was to be applied not only to
also purchased from respondent eight (8) units of heavy equipment and petitioners accounts under the subject land and the Quirino lot but
vehicles in the aggregate amount of Php 1, 020,000. also to heavy equipment bought by the latter from respondent.
Unlike in the November letter, the July letter did not contain the
On account of petitioners failure to pay P361, 895.55 in rental for the month signature of petitioner.
of May, 1992, and the monthly rental of P450, 000.00 for the months of June
and July 1992, the respondent sent two demand letters to petitioner Petitioner submits that his silence is not consent but is in fact a rejection. As
demanding payment of the back rentals, and if no payment was made within provided in Article 1252 of the Civil Code, the right to specify
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the letter, it would cause the cancellation which among his various obligations to the same creditor is to be
of the lease contract. satisfied first rest with the debtor.
Without the knowledge of petitioner, on August 3, 1992, respondent In the case at bar, at the time petitioner made the payment, he made it clear
mortgaged the land subject of the lease contract, including the improvements to respondent that they were to be applied to his rental obligations on the
which petitioner introduced into the land amounting to P35, 000,000.00, to Fairview wet market property. Though he entered into various contracts and
Monte de Piedad Savings Bank, as a security for a loan. obligations with respondent, all the payments made, about P11,000,000.00
were to be applied to rental and security deposit on the Fairview wet market
On August 12, 1992, and the subsequent dates thereafter, respondent refused property. However, respondent applied a big portion of the amount paid by
to accept petitioners daily rental payments. petitioner to the satisfaction of an obligation which was not yet due and
demandable- the payment of the eight heavy equipment.
Subsequently, petitioner filed an action for injunction and damages seeking to
enjoin respondents from disturbing his possession of the property subject of Under the law, if the debtor did not declare at the time he made the payment
the lease contract. On the same day, respondent also filed a complaint for to which of his debts with the creditor the payment is to be applied, the law
ejectment against petitioner. provided the guideline; i.e. no payment is to be applied to a debt which is not
yet due and the payment has to be applied first to the debt which is most
The lower court rendered a decision in favor of the respondent, which was onerous to the debtor.
affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.
The lease over the Fairview wet market is the most onerous to the petitioner
ISSUE in the case at bar.
Whether the petitioner was truly in arrears in the payment of rentals on the Petition granted.
subject property at the time of the filing of the complaint for ejectment.
*Sps. Sinamban v China Bank
HELD
Meanwhile, Sandiganbayan dismissed the petition for declaratory relief, it (3) When, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt;
appearing that while the unpaid rentals as of January 27, 1991 have reached
P7,530,036.21, PCGGs tender of payment and consignation of (4) When two or more persons claim the same right to collect;
P5,000,000.00 averted the accumulation of the unpaid rentals to 3 yearly
(5) When the title of the obligation has been lost.
which, of course, include the meat packing complex and the land of which it
stands, stipulated in the MOA, cannot be legally enforced. Needless to say, the
There was prior tender by PCGG of the amount of P5,000,000.00 for payment commissioners should be the first to abide by the PCGGs resolutions.
of the rentals in arrears. MPCPs refusal to accept the same, on the ground
merely that its lease-purchase agreement with PIMECO had been rescinded, Under the terms of the lease-purchase agreement, the amount of arrears in
was unjustified. From January 29, 1986 to January 30, 1990, PIMECO paid, rentals or amortizations must be equivalent to the cumulative sum of three
and GSIS/MPCP received, several amounts due under the lease-purchase annual installments, in order to warrant the rescission of the contract.
agreement, such as annual amortizations or rentals, advances, insurance, and Therefore, it must be shown that PIMECO failed to pay the aggregate amount
taxes, in total sum of P15,921,205.83. Surely, the acceptance by MPCP and of at least P10,038,809.10 before the lease-purchase agreement can be
GSIS of such payments for rentals and amortizations negates any rescission of deemed automatically cancelled. Assuming in the extreme that, as alleged by
the lease-purchase agreement. MPCP, the arrears at the time of tender on January 30, 1991 amounted to
P12,578,171.00,40 the tender and consignation of the sum of P5,000,000.00,
In support of its contention that the lease-purchase agreement has been which had the effect of payment, reduced the back rentals to only
rescinded, MPCP makes reference to the resolutions of the PCGG turning over P7,578,171.00, an amount less than the equivalent of three annual
to the GSIS the meat packing complex and the land on which it is situated. installments. Thus, with the Sandiganbayans approval of the consignation
MPCP argues that PCGG was estopped from taking a contrary position. A and directive for MPCP to accept the tendered payment, the lease-purchase
closer perusal of the resolutions, however, readily shows that the turn-over agreement could not be said to have been rescinded.
was explicitly made dependent on certain conditions precedent, among which
was the approval by the Sandiganbayan and the execution of a MOA between ALLANDALE SPORTSLINE INC. v. THE GOOD DEVELOPMENT
PCGG and MPCP. A MOA was in fact executed on April 28, 1989, although the CORP
same suffers from formal and substantial infirmities. However, no approval
was sought from the Sandiganbayan. On the contrary, the Sandiganbayan, in CONSIGNATION
its Resolution declaring the turn-over null and void, refused to honor the
PCGG resolutions, reasoning thus: Allandale Sportsline Inc (ASI) obtained a loan of P204,000 from The Good
Development Corp (GDC) under a Promissory Note signed by Melbarose
First, what was approved by the PCGG in its resolutions of September 20, Sasot (Pres) and Allandale Sasot (VP) of ASI, with Theresa
1988, and January 24, 1989, is the transfer of the "meat packing complex Manipon, as one of the three co-makers.
including the land located at Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Metro Manila," and not "the
management and operation of PIMECO." It is, however, the latter that the The promissory note provides that the loan is payable in daily equal
Memorandum of Agreement, executed on April 28, 1989, pursuant to the said installments of P2,000 with interest as 26.002% per annum.
resolutions, transferred to the GSIS.
In case of default in the payment of any installment, the
Second, the second resolution made the turnover of the "meat packing entire balance of the obligation shall become immediately
complex including the land located at Barrio Ugong, Pasig Metro Manila," due and demandable, and subject to liquidated penalty
"upon compliance with these conditions, to be implemented by the [PCGG] charge equivalent to 2% of the principal
Operations and Legal Departments: . . . (b) approval by the Sandiganbayan . .
." Until now, however, no motion has been presented to secure that approval, To provide additional security, ASI and Melbarose executed a Deed
and none can be expected because the same Memorandum of Agreement of Mortgage in favor of GDC acceding that: should the
changed the requirement of approval to "(t)he Sandiganbayan shall be advised Mortgagors fail to comply with any of the terms of the
of this Agreement." Even the advice stipulated has never been given by the promissory note and this mortgage contract, the
PCGG. Mortgagee shall automatically have the absolute right
without need of prior notice or demand to forthwith
Since the MOA was executed by one PCGG commissioner only, the same judicially or extrajudicially forclose this mortgage xxx
cannot validly amend the resolutions passed by the PCGG itself.
Consequently, the turnover of the management and operation of PIMECO,
The properties subject of the mortgage are itemized in an inventory o That they repeatedly tendered payment, but GDC
attached to the deed: rejected their efforts for no valid reason
o List A- all the merchandise and stocks in trade found in the o That the unreasonable refusal to accept such
commercial establishment owned by ASI and Melbarose, payment relieved them of their loan obligation
valued at P100,000
Manipon led a separate Answer in which she did not deny the
o List B- all the furniture, fixtures, appliances, equipment and authenticity of her signature on the Promissory Note, but argued that
other personal property found in said business she did not knowingly or voluntarily sign the instrument as a co-
establishment, P3,500 maker, for at that time she was under the impression that the
instrument she was signing was her own loan application with GDC
o List C- one Toyota Corona, valued at P40,000; one Totoya
Corolla, P35,000 GDC disclosed that after it obtained possession of the properties
subject of the writs of replevin, it caused the auction sale of some of
GD demanded that Melbarose pay the unpaid account of P179,000, them and realized proceeds amounting to P78,750.00 (No
or surrender the mortgaged chattels within 5 days from notice certificate of sale, but as testified by respondents witness,
Leonila Buenviaje)
No payment was made, RTC filed a complaint for Replevin
and/or Sum of Money with Damages against ASI, GDC presented a Statement of Account, which indicated that
Melbarose, Manipon, Florante Edrino and John Doe. the total outstanding balance of the loan obligation of ASI and
Melbarose was reduced to P191,111.82 after the proceeds of the
o Replevin- ordering the seizure of the above described auction sale conducted on June 19, 1992 in the amount of P78,750.00
chattels or personal propert with all accessories and was deducted from the earlier balance of P266,126.17
directing their transfer to Plaintiff for the purposes of
foreclosure and or transfer to satisfy the obligation in favor RTC, in favor of GDC
of the plaintiff
ASI, Sasot and Manipon appealed to CA, DENIED; Motion for
RTC issued a Writ of Replivin, by virtue thereof, the Sheriff seized Recon, denied
and delivered to the GDC one unit of Toyota Corona and two
appliances SC: Petitioners contend that they were relieved of their obligation to
pay GDC when they made several attempts to tender payment but
Dec. 2, 1991, GDC filed an Amended Complaint to include in its respondent refused to accept them without any valid reason.
application for replevin the items under List A. RTC issued an Alias
Writ of Replevin, items seized and delivered to GDC July 3, 1991- first tender of payment, Sasot sent GDC a PCIB check
postdated Oct 31, 1991 of P171,000. Check rejected because the
Second Writ of Replevin was also issued over the Toyota Corolla, but amount was insufficient for as July 4, 1991, the balance of the
records do not indicate that the Sheriff made a return on the writ principal loand was P175,000, not P171,000, and its maturity was
Sept. 13, not Oct. 31
ASI and Melbarose filed their Answer with Counterclaim, contending
that their loan obligation was only P200,000, and after deducting Oct. 15, 1997- tendered payment of P171,000 in cash, respondent
the P18,000 which amount was retained by GDC as advance refused due to insufficiency. Statement of Account was sent to
payment, and P29,000 representing payments made from June 4, petitioner indicating that the total balance due was P228,071.61
1991 to July 8, 1991, their unpaid obligation was only P171,000.
On October 29, 1991, petitioners tendered cash payment of Their tender of payment not having been followed by a valid
P174,986.96, 338 8 but respondent still refused to accept it for consignation, it produced no effect whatsoever, least of all the
insufficiency of the amount. extinguishment of the loan obligation.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT TENDER OF PAYMENT AND Therefore, the first issue of the validity or invalidity of their
RESPONDENTS REFUSAL DISCHARGED PETITIONERS FROM tender of payment is completely moot and academic, for
THEIR OBLIGATION either way the discussion will go, it will lead to no other
conclusion but that, without an accompanying valid
HELD: NO consignation, the tender of payment did not result in the
payment and extinguishment of the loan obligation. The
Tender of payment, without more, produces no effect; Court cannot take cognizance of such a purely hypothetical issue.
rather, tender of payment must be followed by a valid
consignation in order to produce the effect of payment and Disclaimer: following issues, irrelevant to Oblicon pero ilagay at idiscuss ko
extinguish an obligation na rin briefly kahit di ko naiintindihan HAHAHHHA WAG NIYO NA ITO
BASAHIN
Mere preparatory act to consignation. It is the manifestation of a
desire by the debtor to comply with or pay an obligation. If refused FIRST ISSUE: Whether the parol evidence rule applies on the promissory
without just cause, the tender of payment will discharge the debtor note in question when the co-makers thereon are total strangers to another
of the obligation to pay but only after a valid consignation of the sum
due shall have been made with the proper court HELD: Lack of basis. Manipon did not join in the petition.
Consignation is the deposit of the proper amount with a The finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that she was a co-
judicial authority, before whom the debtor must establish maker of Promissory Note and a real party-in-interest is already final
compliance with the following mandatory requirements: and conclusive. Petitioners cannot now question this finding by
raising the defense that Manipon signed the promissory note without
(1) there was a debt due; knowledge of the nature of her liability under the instrument.
(2) the consignation of the obligation had been made because the creditor to Such defense is personal to Manipon and cannot be invoked by
whom tender of payment was made refused to accept it, or because he was petitioners, unless it is shown that their interests are so interwoven
absent or incapacitated, or because several persons claim to be entitled to with and dependent on Manipon's as to be inseparable.
receive the amount due, or because the title to the obligation has been lost;
SECOND ISSUE: Was there a legal basis for RTC to grant respondent the
(3) previous notice of the consignation had been given to the person interested relief of collecting the amount of P269,611.82 plus legal interest until full
in the performance of the obligation; amount is paid, when respondents already covered P78,750
(4) the amount due was placed at the disposal of the court; and As emphasized at the outset, the reliefs respondent prayed for in its
Complaint and Amended Complaint are in the alternative: delivery
(5) after the consignation had been made, the person interested was notified of the mortgaged properties preparatory to foreclosure or payment
thereof. Failure to prove any of these requirements is enough ground to render of the unpaid loan
a consignation ineffective.
NO, by causing the auction sale of the mortgaged properties,
Petitioners did not allege or prove that after their tender of respondent effectively adopted and pursued the remedy of extra-
payment was refused by respondents, they attempted or judicial foreclosure, using the writ of replevin as a tool to get hold of
pursued consignation of the payment with the proper the mortgaged properties. One effect of respondent's election of the
court.
remedy of extra-judicial foreclosure is its waiver of the remedy of Sps. Cacyurin v AFPMB (2013)
collection of the unpaid loan G.R. No. 171298, April 15, 2013
However, another effect of its election of the remedy of extra-judicial Topic: Tender of Payment and consignation
foreclosure is that whatever deciency remains after applying the
proceeds of the auction sale to the total loan obligation may still be
recovered by respondent Doctrine: Besides, as earlier stated, Article 1256 authorizes consignation
alone, without need of prior tender of payment, where the ground for
THIRD ISSUE, DI PA RIN RELEVANT: Whether respondent instituted consignation is that the creditor is unknown, or does not appear at the place
the proper action for deficiency amount or raised or its claim at the pre-trial of payment; or is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due;
or when, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt; or when two or more
The Complaint and Amended Complaint reveals that persons claim the same right to collect; or when the title of the obligation has
been lost.
respondent did not allege any deciency account. Nor did it
raise the matter in its PreTrial Brief. This is only to be expected
because the auction sale of the properties was apparently conducted Facts:
long after it led its Complaint/Amended Complaint and Pre-trial
Brief Petitioner Oscar Cacayorin filed an application with AFPMBAI to
purchase a piece of property which the latter owned in Puerto Princesa City,
However, the Court notes that evidence on the deficiency amount through a loan facility.
was duly presented by respondent and examined by petitioners (thru
the testimonies and documentary evidences presented in court) On July 4, 1994, Oscar and his wife and the Rural Bank of San Teodoro
executed a Loan and Mortgage Agreement with the former as borrowers and
The properties of petitioners which were seized by virtue of the Writs the Rural Bank as lender, under the auspices of Pag-IBIG or Home
of Replevin were extra-judicially foreclosed and sold at public Development Mutual Funds Home Financing Program.
auction by respondent in the exercise of its absolute right under the
contract entered into by the parties, without need of prior notice or The Rural Bank issued an August 22, 1994 letter of guaranty6
demand to forthwith judicially or extra-judicially foreclose this informing AFPMBAI that the proceeds of petitioners approved loan in the
mortgage and proceed against all or any of the mortgaged rights, amount of P77,418.00 shall be released to AFPMBAI after title to the property
interests and properties for the full satisfaction of the mortgagors' is transferred in petitioners name and after the registration and annotation of
entire obligation to the mortgagee. the parties mortgage agreement.
Under the Deed of Mortgage, it is provided that in case of AFPMBAI executed in petitioners favor a Deed of Absolute Sale, and a new
default, petitioners shall be liable for liquidated collection title was issued in their name, with the corresponding annotation of their
charge in the amount equivalent to 25% of said outstanding mortgage agreement with the Rural Bank.
obligation.
Unfortunately, the Pag-IBIG loan facility did not push through and
the Rural Bank closed and was placed under receivership by the Philippine
Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). Meanwhile, AFPMBAI somehow was
able to take possession of petitioners loan documents and the title, while
petitioners were unable to pay the loan/consideration for the property.
(d) P417,000.00 payable to the New Capitol Estate, for 15 years at Doctrine: It is settled that compliance with the requisites of a valid
[P6,867.12] a month consignation is mandatory. Failure to comply strictly with any of the
requisites will render the consignation void. One of these requisites is a valid
x x x In the event the VENDEE fails to pay the second installment on time, prior tender of payment.
[t]he VENDEE will pay starting May 1, 1993 a 2% interest on the P300,000.00
monthly. Likewise, in the event the VENDEE fails to pay the amount of Facts:
P630,000.00 on the stipulated time, this CONTRACT TO SELL shall likewise
be deemed cancelled and rescinded and x x x 5% of the total contract price [of] Subsequently, the Suico spouses and their business partners failed to pay their
P1,250,000.00 shall be deemed forfeited in favor of the VENDOR. Unpaid loan obligations forcing DBP to foreclose the mortgage. After the Suico
monthly amortization shall likewise be deducted from the initial down spouses and their partners failed to redeem the foreclosed properties, DBP
payment in favor of the VENDOR. consolidated its ownership over the same.
After execution of the contract, Bonrostro took possession of the property. Nonetheless, DBP later allowed the Suico spouses and Reginald and Beatriz
However, except for P200,000.00 downpayment, she failed to pay Flores (Flores spouses), as substitutes for Juliana Del Rosario, to repurchase
subsequent amortization. Luna then filed before the RTC a Complaint for the subject lots by way of a conditional sale for the sum of P240,571.00.
Rescission of Contract and Damages. This is a petition for review on certiorari
assailing the decision of CA affirming with modification the decision of RTC The Suico and Flores spouses were able to pay the downpayment and the first
in favor herein respondents. monthly amortization, but no monthly installments were made thereafter.
Threatened with the cancellation of the conditional sale, the Suico and Flores
Issue: Whether or not delay in the payment of installment is a substantial spouses sold their rights over the said properties to herein respondents
breach of obligation as to warrant its rescission. Restituto and Mima Sabordo, subject to the condition that the latter shall pay
the balance of the sale price. Subsequently, respondents were able to
Ruling: No, in a contract to sell, payment of the price is a positive suspensive repurchase the foreclosed properties of the Suico and Flores spouses.
condition. Failure of which is not a breach of contract warranting rescission
under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, but rather just an event that prevents the Respondents Restituto Sabordo (Restituto) filed with the then Court of First
supposed seller from being bound to convey title to the supposed buyer. The Instance of Negros Occidental an original action for declaratory relief with
contract to sell entered by the parties refers to real property on installment damages and prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction raising the issue of
basis, in which Art. 1191 cannot apply since they are governed by the Maceda whether or not the Suico spouses have the right to recover from respondents
Law. However, there being no breach, Bonrostro is still not excused from Lots 506 and 514. The court ruled that the petioners can exercise their option
being made liable for interest on the installments due from the date of default to purchase or redeem the subject lots from respondents by paying the sum of
until fully paid. Tender of payment, a manifestation by the debtor of a desire P127,500.00.
to comply with or pay an obligation, asserted by Bonrostro for the accrual of
interest to be suspended is not a valid defense because for a tender of payment In the meantime, Toribio Suico (Toribio) died leaving his widow, Eufrocina,
to take effect it must be accompanied by the means of payment and debtor and several others, including herein petitioner, as legal heirs. Later, they
must take immediate step to make a consignation, the deposit of the proper discovered that respondents mortgaged Lots 506 and 514 with Republic
amount with a judicial authority, then interest is suspended from the time of Planters Bank (RPB) as security for a loan which, subsequently, became
such tender. delinquent.
Thereafter, claiming that they are ready with the payment of P127,500.00, but Under Article 1256, the only instances where prior tender of payment is
alleging that they cannot determine as to whom such payment shall be made, excused are: (1) when the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear
petitioner and her co-heirs filed a Complaint with the RTC of San Carlos City, at the place of payment; (2) when the creditor is incapacitated to receive the
Negros Occidental seeking to compel herein respondents and RPB to payment at the time it is due; (3) when, without just cause, the creditor refuses
interplead and litigate between themselves their respective interests on the to give a receipt; (4) when two or more persons claim the same right to collect;
abovementioned sum of money. The Complaint also prayed that respondents and (5) when the title of the obligation has been lost. None of these instances
be directed to substitute Lots 506 and 514 with other real estate properties as are present in the instant case. Hence, the fact that the subject lots are in
collateral for their outstanding obligation with RPB and that the latter be danger of being foreclosed does not excuse petitioner and her co-heirs from
ordered to accept the substitute collateral and release the mortgage on Lots tendering payment to respondents, as directed by the court.
506 and 514. Upon filing of their complaint, the heirs of Toribio
deposited the amount of P127,500.00 with the RTC of San Carlos
City, Branch 59.
Respondents filed their Answer with Counterclaim praying for the dismissal
of the above Complaint on the grounds that (1) the action for interpleader
was improper since RPB is not laying any claim on the sum of
P127,500.00; (2) that the period within which the complainants are
allowed to purchase Lots 506 and 514 had already expired; (3) that
there was no valid consignation, and (4) that the case is barred
by litis pendencia or res judicata.
Ruling:
The petition lacks merit. In the instant case, petitioner and her co-heirs, upon
making the deposit with the RTC, did not ask the trial court that respondents
be notified to receive the amount that they have deposited. In fact, there was
no tender of payment. Instead, what petitioner and her co-heirs prayed for is
that respondents and RPB be directed to interplead with one another to
determine their alleged espective rights over the consigned amount; that
respondents be likewise directed to substitute the subject lots with other real
properties as collateral for their loan with RPB and that RPB be also directed
to accept the substitute real properties as collateral for the said loan.
Nonetheless, the trial court correctly ruled that interpleader is not the proper
remedy because RPB did not make any claim whatsoever over the amount
consigned by petitioner and her co-heirs with the court.