Law Case Study

Nathallie H. Cabaluna BSA – 3 MWF 6:00-7:00 PM G.R. No. 149756 MYRNA RAMOS, petitioner

vs.

SUSANA S. SARAO and JONAS RAMOS, respondents I.

FACTS: Jonas Ramos and Myrna Ramos executed a contract over their conjugal house and lot on February 21, 1991 in favor of Susana S. Sarao for and in consideration of P1, 310, 430 plus an interest of 4.5 percent a month. On July 30, 1991, Myrna Ramos tendered the payment of P1, 633, 034.20 in the form of two manager checks which the latter refused to accept alleging its insufficiency. On August 8, 1991, Myrna filed a complaint for the redemption of the property and moral damages plus attorney’s fees. On August 13, 1991, the petitioner deposited with the judicial authority the two checks that Sarao refused to accept.

II.

ISSUE: Whether or not the honorable appellate court erred in affirming the ruling of the court a quo that there was no valid tender of payment of the redemption price neither a valid consignation in the instant case.

III.

RULING: Tender of payment is the act, on the part of the debtor, of offering to the creditor the thing or amount due. In the case wherein the creditor refuses to accept the tendered payment without just cause, the debtor, in accordance with Article 1256, shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due. According to Article 1257: “In order that the consignation of

the thing due may release the obligor, it must first be announced to the 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.” The trial and appellate courts’ conclusion that there was no valid consignation is incorrect. It is clearly written in the petitioner’s August 1, 1991 letter that should the respondent fail

to accept payment, the former would consign the amount. This is, without doubt, an unambiguous announcement of consignation. Moreover, it was also computed by the respondent herself that the principal loan was P1, 310,430 plus 4.5 percent monthly interest compounded for six months. With the desire to pay on the fifth month, the petitioner stated the fact that the total amount due was P1, 633, 034.19. The alleged amount of P2, 911, 579.22 that the respondent demanded is excessive because this total includes costs that are not supposed to be included in a mortgage for a loan. Therefore, the petitioner’s consignation of the amount of P1, 633, 034.20 was valid, thus, produced the effect of payment. The consignation also has a retroactive effect wherein the payment is deemed to have been made at the time of the deposit of the thing in court or when it was placed at the disposal of the judicial authority.