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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 173 views

    De Guzman V. CA

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Sison Go
    The respondent tried to fulfill the terms of a compromise agreement to pay the petitioner, but was delayed through no fault of their own. The court ruled that as long as the delay in payment was not the fault of the paying party, it is considered that payment was still made. Here, the respondent substantially complied with the agreement despite the petitioner's failure to be present to receive payment, so the petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    De Guzman V. CA

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Sison Go
    173 views1 page
    The respondent tried to fulfill the terms of a compromise agreement to pay the petitioner, but was delayed through no fault of their own. The court ruled that as long as the delay in payment was not the fault of the paying party, it is considered that payment was still made. Here, the respondent substantially complied with the agreement despite the petitioner's failure to be present to receive payment, so the petition was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Oblicon, Consignation, Law, Obligations and contracts

    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?

    The respondent tried to fulfill the terms of a compromise agreement to pay the petitioner, but was delayed through no fault of their own. The court ruled that as long as the delay in payment was not the fault of the paying party, it is considered that payment was still made. Here, the respondent substantially complied with the agreement despite the petitioner's failure to be present to receive payment, so the petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    De Guzman V. CA

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Sison Go
    The respondent tried to fulfill the terms of a compromise agreement to pay the petitioner, but was delayed through no fault of their own. The court ruled that as long as the delay in payment was not the fault of the paying party, it is considered that payment was still made. Here, the respondent substantially complied with the agreement despite the petitioner's failure to be present to receive payment, so the petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Paolo G

    De Guzman v. CA (1970)
    Petition: Appeal Petitioner: Pilar De Guzman, Rolando Gestuvo and Minerva Gestuvo Respondent: CA, Judge Bautuista and Leonida Singh Ponencia: Concepcion

    DOCTRINE: Consignation In this case, the private respondent tried to fulfill the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement but was delayed due to the fault of the petitioner. If there is no fault on the part of the one paying there is deemed to still have been consignation. FACTS: 1. 2. Feb 17, 1971: De Guzman sold 2 parcels of land in Pasay to Singh. The balance was due on or before Feb 17, 1975. Feb 15, 1975: Singh requested petitioners to furnish her with statement of account of balance duel copies of the certificates of titles for the two lands and a copy of the power of atty. request denied. Singh filed case for specific performance to furnish the documents. (Assailing bad faith on part of petitioners) Petitioners answered saying they had no obligation to furnish documents and that the amount due was predetermined in the contract. Nov 29, 1977: TC approved the compromise agreement entered into by the parties. (Not later than dec. 18, 1977 pay 240k or pay 250k not later than jan 27, 1978, Upon receipt they would transfer title, failure to pay = rescission, payment would take place before the judge) Jan 28: Petitioner filed a writ of execution saying respondents failed to abide. Respondents said they abided with the compromise agreement. (Read ratio for what happened) Court sided with respondents and TC dismissed appeals. Hence current case.

    3. 4.

    5.

    RULING + RATIO: 1. Yes. Respondent had substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement. Judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement it not appealable. It is immediately executor unless a motion is filed to set aside the compromise agreement on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, in which case an appeal may be taken from the order denying the motion. In the case at bar, the legality or enforceability of the compromise agreement or the decision of the TC approving the compromise agreement is not disputed. (Both parties want the compromise agreement to be implemented.) Issue raised, which is one of fact is appealable. Respondent has complied with the agreement and her failure to deliver to the petitioners the full amount on Jan 27, 1978 was not her fault. (Petitioners are to blame as they were not at the agreed place where payment was to be made and were unavailable despite the respondents efforts) Since the deposit and balance of the purchase price was made in good faith and that the failure to deposit agreed price on due date was due to the fault of petitioner, there was substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement. DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued is LIFTED and SET ASIDE. With costs against the petitioners.

    6. 7. 8. 9.

    ISSUES: 1. WoN the compromise agreement is final executory.

    and

    PROVISION: Article 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. Consignation alone shall produce the same effect in the following cases: (1) When the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the place of payment; (2) When he is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due; (3) When, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt; (4) When two or more persons claim the same right to collect; (5) When the title of the obligation has been lost. (1176a)

    You might also like