Professional Documents
Culture Documents
84 Del Carmen vs. Spouses Sabordo
84 Del Carmen vs. Spouses Sabordo
*
ELIZABETH DEL CARMEN, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES
RESTITUTO SABORDO and MIMA MAHILUM
SABORDO, respondents.
_______________
*THIRD DIVISION.
532
533
PERALTA, J.:
This treats of the petition for review on certiorari
assailing the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA), dated May 25, 2007 and January 24, 2008,
respectively, in C.A.G.R. CV No. 75013.
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are
as follows:
Sometime in 1961, the spouses Toribio and Eufrocina
Suico (Suico spouses), along with several business partners,
entered into a business venture by establishing a rice and
corn mill at Mandaue City, Cebu. As part of their capital,
they obtained a loan from the Development Bank of the
Philippines (DBP), and to secure the said loan, four parcels
of land owned by the Suico spouses, denominated as Lots
506, 512, 513 and 514, and another lot owned by their
business partner, Juliana Del Rosario, were mortgaged.
Subsequently, the Suico spouses and their business
partners failed to pay their loan obligations forcing DBP to
foreclose the mortgage. After the Suico spouses and their
partners failed to redeem the foreclosed properties, DBP
consolidated its ownership over the same. Nonetheless,
DBP later allowed the Suico spouses and Reginald and
Beatriz Flores (Flores spouses), as substitutes for Juliana
Del Rosario, to repurchase the subject lots by way of a
conditional sale for the sum of P240,571.00. The Suico and
Flores spouses were able to pay the down payment and the
first monthly amortization, but no monthly installments
were made thereafter. Threatened with the cancellation of
the conditional sale, the Suico and Flores spouses sold their
rights over the said properties to herein respondents Resti
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate
Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Agustin S. Dizon, concurring; Annex F
to Petition, Rollo, pp. 7079.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate
Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Amy C. LazaroJavier, concurring;
Annex H to Petition, id., at pp. 8485.
534
xxxx
For reasons given, judgment is hereby rendered modifying the
dispositive portion of [the] decision of the lower court to read:
1) The defendantsappellees are granted up to October 31,
1990 within which
_______________
3Annex A to Petition, id., at pp. 2146.
535
_______________
4Id., at pp. 4445.
5Annex B to Petition, id., at pp. 4748.
536
_______________
6Annex C to Petition, id., at pp. 4952.
7Annex D to Petition, id., at pp. 5356.
8See RTC Decision, Annex E to Petition, id., at pp. 5769.
537
_______________
9 Annex G to Petition, id., at pp. 8083.
10Rollo, p. 16.
11 Art. 1256. 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. xxx
12 Art. 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.
538
At the outset, the Court quotes with approval the
discussion of the CA regarding the definition and nature of
consignation, to wit:
consignation [is] the act of depositing the thing due with the
court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept
or refuses to accept payment, and it generally requires a prior
tender of payment. It should be distinguished from tender
of payment which is the manifestation by the debtor to the
creditor of his desire to comply with his obligation, with
the offer of immediate performance. Tender is the antecedent
of consignation, that is, an act preparatory to the consignation,
which is the principal, and from which are derived the immediate
consequences which the debtor desires or seeks to obtain. Tender
of payment may be extrajudicial, while consignation is necessarily
judicial, and the priority of the first is the attempt to make a
private settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of
consignation. Tender and consignation, where validly made,
produces the effect of payment and extinguishes the obligation.13
_______________
13 Annex F to Petition, Rollo, p. 77, citing Banco Filipino Savings
and Mortgage Bank v. Diaz, 526 Phil. 222; 493 SCRA 248 (2006).
(Emphasis ours; citations and underscoring omitted)
1491 Phil. 499 (1952).
539
_______________
15Id., at p. 502.
1685 Phil. 170, 178(1949).
1788 Phil. 236 (1951).
18G.R. No. 156846, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 596.
19 Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 72110,
November 16, 1990, 191 SCRA 411, 419.
540
_______________
20 Dalton v. FGR Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No.
172577, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 92, 102; Manuel v. Court of Appeals,
276 Phil. 657, 664; 199 SCRA 603, 609 (1991); Soco v. Militante, No. L
58961, June 28, 1983, 123 SCRA 160, 173.
21Id.
**Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22,
2014 in view of the vacancy in the Third Division.
541
o0o