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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Del Carmen Vs Spouses Sabordo

    Uploaded by

    Bong Bong Ski
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over property ownership. The Suico and Flores spouses had taken out a loan using four parcels of land as collateral but failed to repay the loan. The lender foreclosed on the properties and later allowed the spouses to repurchase them through a conditional sale, but the spouses only made the down payment and first installment and no further payments. Threatened with cancellation of the sale, the spouses sold their rights to the properties to the Sabordo spouses, on condition that they pay the remaining balance. The key issue is whether the Suico spouses have the right to recover two of the lots after the fact. The court ruled they do but

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Del Carmen Vs Spouses Sabordo

    Uploaded by

    Bong Bong Ski
    1K views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over property ownership. The Suico and Flores spouses had taken out a loan using four parcels of land as collateral but failed to repay the loan. The lender foreclosed on the properties and later allowed the spouses to repurchase them through a conditional sale, but the spouses only made the down payment and first installment and no further payments. Threatened with cancellation of the sale, the spouses sold their rights to the properties to the Sabordo spouses, on condition that they pay the remaining balance. The key issue is whether the Suico spouses have the right to recover two of the lots after the fact. The court ruled they do but

    Original Description:

    Del Carmen vs Sabordo Digest

    Original Title

    Del Carmen vs Spouses Sabordo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over property ownership. The Suico and Flores spouses had taken out a loan using four parcels of land as collateral but failed to repay the loan. The lender foreclosed on the properties and later allowed the spouses to repurchase them through a conditional sale, but the spouses only made the down payment and first installment and no further payments. Threatened with cancellation of the sale, the spouses sold their rights to the properties to the Sabordo spouses, on condition that they pay the remaining balance. The key issue is whether the Suico spouses have the right to recover two of the lots after the fact. The court ruled they do but

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Del Carmen Vs Spouses Sabordo

    Uploaded by

    Bong Bong Ski
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over property ownership. The Suico and Flores spouses had taken out a loan using four parcels of land as collateral but failed to repay the loan. The lender foreclosed on the properties and later allowed the spouses to repurchase them through a conditional sale, but the spouses only made the down payment and first installment and no further payments. Threatened with cancellation of the sale, the spouses sold their rights to the properties to the Sabordo spouses, on condition that they pay the remaining balance. The key issue is whether the Suico spouses have the right to recover two of the lots after the fact. The court ruled they do but

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GR No.

    181723

    Del Carmen v Spouse Sabordo

    (Suico spouses), obtained a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP),
    four parcels of land namely Lots 506, 512, 513 and 514 were mortgaged as security.
    They failed to pay their loan forcing DBP to foreclose the mortgage. DBP consolidated
    its ownership over the same. Nonetheless, DBP later allowed the Suico spouses Flores
    spouses to repurchase the subject lots by way of a conditional sale. The Suico and
    Flores spouses were able to pay the downpayment 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 (Sabordo Spouses) subject to the condition that the latter shall pay the
    balance of the sale price. On September 3, 1974, respondents and the Suico and Flores
    spouses executed a supplemental agreement whereby they affirmed that what was
    actually sold to respondents were Lots 512 and 513, while Lots 506 and 514 were given
    to them as usufructuaries. DBP approved the sale of rights of the Suico and Flores
    spouses in favor of herein respondents. Subsequently, respondents were able to
    repurchase the foreclosed properties of the Suico and Flores spouses.

    Respondent filed with the Court for declaratory relief with damages and prayer for a writ
    of preliminary injunction raising the issue of whether or not the Suico spouses have the
    right to recover from respondents Lots 506 and 514. While the action is pending, they
    obtained a loan from Republic Planters Bank (RPB) mortgaging the said lots as security
    for the subject loan. The Court ruled in favor of the Suico spouses directing that the
    Suico have until August 31, 1987 within which to redeem or buy back from respondents
    Lots 506 and 514. Also, Suico have to pay the respondents the sum of 127,500.00.
    Suico alleging that they cannot determine as to whom such payment shall be made,
    petitioner and her co-heirs filed a Complaint with the RTC of San Carlos City, Negros
    Occidental. Suico consigned the 127,500.00 to the said court.

    ISSUE: WON there was a valid consignation.

    Held: No.

    In the case of Arzaga v. Rumbaoa, PAYEE be notified to receive the tender of payment.
    This Court held that while "[t]he deposit, by itself alone, may not have been sufficient, but
    with the express terms of the petition, there was full and complete offer of payment
    made directly to defendants-appellants." In the instant case, however, petitioner and her
    co-heirs, upon making the deposit with the RTC, did not ask the trial court that
    respondents be notified to receive the amount that they have deposited. In fact, there
    was no tender of payment. Instead, what petitioner and her co-heirs prayed for is that
    respondents and RPB be directed to interplead with one another to determine their
    alleged respective rights over the consigned amount; that respondents be likewise
    directed to substitute the subject lots with other real properties as collateral for their loan
    with RPB and that RPB be also directed to accept the substitute real properties as
    collateral for the said loan.

    In the cases of Del Rosario v. Sandico and Salvante v. Cruz, likewise cited as authority
    by petitioner, this Court held that, for a consignation or deposit with the court of an
    amount due on a judgment to be considered as payment, there must be prior tender to
    the judgment creditor who refuses to accept it. It is settled that compliance with the
    requisites of a valid consignation is mandatory. Failure to comply strictly with any of the
    requisites will render the consignation void. One of these requisites is a valid prior
    tender of payment.

    You might also like