McLaughlin v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. L-57552, 10 October 1986

FACTS:

Petitioner and private respondent, Flores, entered into a contract of conditional sale of real property. When the private responded failed to pay the balance on the date stipulated, he filed a petition to rescind the contract. They entered into a Compromise Agreement. Thereafter, the petitioner made a demand. In response, the Flores sent a letter to the former signifying his willingness and intention to pay the balance. Flores alleged that he tendered payment to petitioner but the petitioner refused to accept it. Petitioner filed a motion for writ of execution, to rescind and liquidate damages, alleging that Flores had failed to pay the installment due, as stipulated in their compromise agreement. Flores filed a motion for reconsideration and tendered a certified manager’s check covering the entire obligation, within seventeen days after it was due. The trial court dismissed the motion for reconsideration. The CA nullified and set aside the decision of the trial court. It contended that rescission will not be permitted in cases of a slight or casual breach. The delay in payment of Flores is merely a slight breach.

ISSUE:

WON the tender of payment restored the defendant’s right as vendee.

RULING:

Yes. The tender made by private respondent of a certified bank manager’s check payable to petitioner was a valid tender of payment. The certified check covered not only the balance of the purchase price in the amount of P69,059.71, but also the arrears in the rental payments from June to December 1980 in the amount of P7,000.00, or a total of P76,059.71. But he is not released from the responsibility to pay the vendor. The vendee must first consign the amount to the court. According to Article 1256 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, if the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due, and that consignation alone shall produce the same effect in the five cases enumerated therein; Article 1257 provides that in order that the consignation of the thing (or sum) due may release the obligor, it must first be announced to the persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation; and Article 1258 provides that consignation shall be made by depositing the thing (or sum) due at the disposal of the judicial authority and that the interested parties shall also be notified thereof.

* Case digest by Suzeyne  Garcia, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018

By |2018-05-17T05:19:49+00:00May 15th, 2018|Case Digests|0 Comments

Leave A Comment