Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 248 views

    Paez Vs Magno

    Uploaded by

    Zaira Gem Gonzales
    - In 1943, plaintiffs borrowed 4,000 Japanese military notes from defendant and mortgaged land as security, with the debt due in 5 years. - In 1944, plaintiffs offered to pay the debt but defendant rejected it. In 1945, plaintiffs filed a case to have the debt declared paid and mortgage cancelled. - The court dismissed the case because plaintiffs did not deposit the amount owed in court as required by law after the tender of payment was rejected. - The court held that a mere tender of payment is not enough to relieve the debtor of liability, they must deposit the amount in court.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Paez Vs Magno

    Uploaded by

    Zaira Gem Gonzales
    248 views1 page
    - In 1943, plaintiffs borrowed 4,000 Japanese military notes from defendant and mortgaged land as security, with the debt due in 5 years. - In 1944, plaintiffs offered to pay the debt but defendant rejected it. In 1945, plaintiffs filed a case to have the debt declared paid and mortgage cancelled. - The court dismissed the case because plaintiffs did not deposit the amount owed in court as required by law after the tender of payment was rejected. - The court held that a mere tender of payment is not enough to relieve the debtor of liability, they must deposit the amount in court.

    Original Title

    Paez vs Magno

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - In 1943, plaintiffs borrowed 4,000 Japanese military notes from defendant and mortgaged land as security, with the debt due in 5 years. - In 1944, plaintiffs offered to pay the debt but defendant rejected it. In 1945, plaintiffs filed a case to have the debt declared paid and mortgage cancelled. - The court dismissed the case because plaintiffs did not deposit the amount owed in court as required by law after the tender of payment was rejected. - The court held that a mere tender of payment is not enough to relieve the debtor of liability, they must deposit the amount in court.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    248 views1 page

    Paez Vs Magno

    Uploaded by

    Zaira Gem Gonzales
    - In 1943, plaintiffs borrowed 4,000 Japanese military notes from defendant and mortgaged land as security, with the debt due in 5 years. - In 1944, plaintiffs offered to pay the debt but defendant rejected it. In 1945, plaintiffs filed a case to have the debt declared paid and mortgage cancelled. - The court dismissed the case because plaintiffs did not deposit the amount owed in court as required by law after the tender of payment was rejected. - The court held that a mere tender of payment is not enough to relieve the debtor of liability, they must deposit the amount in court.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Paez vs.

    Magno FACTS: On October 1943, plaintiffs and appellants borrowed from defendant and appellee P4,000 in Japanese Military notes, with the promise to pay within a period of five years. As a security, a parcel of land was mortgaged infavor of the creditor. On September 1944, payment of this debt was offered and tendered, but was rejected by the creditor. For that reason, an action was filed on November 18, 1945 asking that the obligation be declared as already paid and the deed of mortgage be cancelled. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground that plaintiffs have no cause of action, therebeing no cause of action, there being no allegation that the thing due was consigned in court, as provided by law. The motion was granted, hence, this appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the debtor is relieved of his liability. HELD: There is no allegation that the amount of debt was consigned in court after tender of payment had been made and rejected. Therefore, the debtor is not relieved of his liability. A mere tender of payment is enough, if made on time, as a basis for action against the vendee to compel him to resell. But that tender does not in itself relieve the vendor from his obligation to pay the price whenredemption is allowed by the court. In other word, tender of payment issufficient to compel redemption but is not in itself a payment that relieves the vendor from his liability to pay the redemption price.

    You might also like