January 2018 - page 4

FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent entered into a contract of sale over a parcel of land to be paid within four (4) years from execution of the contract. The contract included stipulations for cancellation, forfeiture of previous payments, and reconveyance of the land in question in case the private respondent would fail to complete payment within the said period. Upon the denial of its requests to pay in three installments when the period of payment had expired, private respondent proffered a personal check which petitioner refused to accept. ISSUE(S): Whether or not there was a tender of payment. HELD: NO.…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 16 February 1935, Dr. Jose Eduque secured two loans from Mariano Ocampo de Leon, Dona Escolastica delos Reyes and defendant-appellant, with amounts of P40,000 and P15,000, both payable within 20 years with interest of 5% per annum. Payment of the loans was guaranteed by mortgage on real property. On 6 December 1943, plaintiff-appellee, as administratrix of the estate of Dr. Jose Eduque, tendered payment by means of a cashier’s check representing Japanese War notes to defendant-appellant, who refused payment. By reason of such refusal, an action was brought and the cashier’s check was deposited in court. After trial,…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The Supreme Court, in its earlier decision affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision that Raymundo Crystal’s redemption of the property acquired by private respondents was invalid as the check which petitioner used in paying the redemption price has been either dishonored or had become stale. ISSUE(S): Whether the conflicting circumstances of the check being dishonored and becoming stale affect the validity of the redemption sale. HELD: YES. For a check to be dishonored upon presentment on the one hand, and to be stale for not being presented at all in time on the other hand are incompatible developments that…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent entered into a Compromise Agreement to settle a land registration case involving four parcels of land, both agreeing to pay the other and the testate estate of Nicolai Drepin if either of them buys the property. Private respondent claimed to have bought the lots first on 15 January 1990 by delivering to the administrator of the Drepin estate two checks: one in favor of petitioner and the other in favor of the estate. Petitioner denied receiving the check, also contending that it bought the properties on 7 March 1990 by tendering a manager’s check each…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioners were ordered by the trial court to pay private respondent in connection with the civil suit the latter filed against them. They delivered the total money judgement to the Deputy Sheriff. Private respondent refused to accept the proffered payment, insisting that she be paid from petitioner’s garnished funds deposited with the cashier of the trial court. ISSUE(S): Whether or not payment by means of cashier’s check is considered payment in legal tender. HELD: NO. A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The Board of Directors of Mico Metals Corporation in a resolution authorized petitioners Lee and Sio to negotiate and secure the approval of commercial loans and other banking facilities and accommodations from respondent bank. MICO availed of several loans which were credited to its current checking account. In addition, MICO also applied for domestic and foreign letters of credit, which were negotiated and accepted by MICO as evidenced by corresponding bank drafts issued and trust receipts executed. ISSUE(S): Whether or not letters of credit and trust receipts are negotiable instruments. HELD: NO. Negotiable instruments which are meant to be…

Keep Reading