46-Valdellonv.Tengco

HanBee 2017

Valdellon v. Tengco 141 SCRA 320 February 12, 1986 FACTS: Sometime in 1956, on a verbal agreement to pay monthly rental to the original owner, herein petitioner constructed his house on the lot in question. After buying the lot in 1968, herein respondents notified the defendant to remove his house and to vacate the premises because they want to build a three-storey building thereon. They also demanded the payment of P 200.00 a month from August 15, 1968 until defendant shall have actually vacated the land. Defendant refused, thus the first ejectment case was filed on September 28, 1968 docketed as Civil Case No. 174400 of the City Court of Manila. The case went on trial until it was decided with finality on July 1977, in favor of herein respondents. Meanwhile, petitioner had been depositing his monthly rentals of P200.00 with the Court of Appeals during the pendency of the case in that Court and in the Supreme Court. By reason of the finality of the decision and the remand of the record of the case to the CA, respondents wrote on February 19, 1979 a letter to petitioner requesting that the monthly rentals starting March, 1979 be paid to them directly. On June 11, 1979, respondents, through counsel, wrote another letter to defendant demanding payment of all accrued rentals and to vacate the premises within ten (10) days from notice, otherwise, an ejectment suit will be filed against him. On June 12, 1979, petitioner's son, Isagani Valdellon, went to respondents' residence and offered to pay the rentals for April, May and June, 1979 but the latter refused to accept payment because on June 13, 1979, petitioner deposited the rentals for April, May and June, 1979 with the Court of Appeals who accepted the same under O.R. No. 8611676, dated June 13, 1979. On June 22, 1979, the present action was instituted in the City Court where, after trial on the merits, the judgment appealed from was rendered. ISSUE: W/N there was a valid consignation. HELD: NO. The deposits made by the petitioner in the Court of Appeals on March 19, 1979 and on June 13, 1979, without notice thereof to the private respondents and despite petitioner's receipt of said respondent's letter of February 19, 1979, cannot be considered as valid consignation as required and contemplated by law. Under Art. 1257 of our Civil Code, in order that consignation of the thing due may release the obligor, it must first be announced to the

HanBee 2017

persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation. The consignation shall be ineffectual if it is not made strictly in consonance with the provisions which regulate payment. In said Article 1258, it is further stated that the consignation having been made, the interested party shall also be notified thereof. In the case of Soco vs. Militante, it was even stated that without the notice first announced to the persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation, the consignation as a payment is void. The claim of petitioner that the deposits he made in the Court of Appeals were mere continuations of the procedure practised by him for over ten years can serve him no benefit. Petitioner was undoubtedly aware of the fact that the case pending between him and respondents in said appellate court had already been terminated and, therefore, there was no justifiable cause for him to continue making said deposits in that court as private respondents had in fact so advised petitioner by letter on February 19, 1979. The insistence of petitioner to continue making the belated deposit of his arrears in rentals in the Court of Appeals was not only unjustified. Here his deliberate intransigence was all the more compounded by petitioner's intentional non-compliance with what the governing law on the matter, BP Blg. 25, specifically directs, which is that notice of the deposit so made should thereafter be given to the person in whose favor such deposits are made. Petitioner can, therefore, obtain no gain from such improper deposits made by him. His stubbornness in making said deposits, belated as these already are, and contrary to the proper advice received by him from the private respondents, is illustrative of petitioner's apparent bad faith.

HanBee 2017