Salvante v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Andres Calaycay obtained a judgment on September 30, 1936, ordering Bernardina Ubi Cruz to deliver a parcel of land upon payment of P725. The judgment was not executed within five years from its entry. Procedural History: On April 20, 1944, the heirs of Calaycay (plaintiffs) filed an action to enforce the judgment, depositing P725 in Japanese war notes. The lower court declared the judgment reestablished and ordered the delivery of the land without payment, deeming the Japanese war notes legal tender and lost for the defendant. Bernardina Ubi Cruz appealed. The Petition: The core issue is whether the tender and consignation of Japanese war notes relieved the plaintiffs from their liability, hinging on whether the defendant's refusal to accept payment was justified after the five-year period for execution by motion had lapsed.
Issue(s)
Whether the tender and consignation of Japanese war notes by the plaintiffs relieved them from their liability. Whether the defendant had a valid reason to refuse the tender of payment made after the lapse of five years from the entry of the judgment. Whether a dormant judgment can be enforced by a tender of payment and consignation before it is revived by a new judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. It ruled that the plaintiffs were not relieved from their liability by the tender and consignation of Japanese war notes. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant P725 upon the transfer and delivery of the property and the execution of the deed of cancellation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the tender and consignation of Japanese war notes: The Court held that the defendant had a valid reason to refuse the tender of payment. The judgment of September 30, 1936, was no longer executory by motion or writ of execution after the lapse of five years from its entry. It had become dormant and could only be enforced through a new action to revive it. Therefore, the consignation of depreciated Japanese war notes did not relieve the plaintiffs from their liability. On the justification for the defendant's refusal to accept payment: The Court found that the defendant's refusal was justified. The plaintiffs could not compel the defendant to accept payment based on the original contract because it had merged into the judgment. They also could not compel acceptance based on the judgment because it was no longer executory. The tender was made when the judgment was dormant, and the plaintiffs could not rely on a future judgment of revival, which did not yet exist at the time of the tender. On the enforceability of a dormant judgment: The Court clarified that a dormant judgment, while still valid as a subsisting debt, cannot be enforced until it has been duly revived by a new judgment rendered in an action to enforce it. The mere filing of an action to enforce a dormant judgment does not make it immediately enforceable; it is the subsequent judgment of revival that becomes enforceable. The plaintiffs could not invoke the dormant judgment to compel acceptance of their tender of payment during the pendency of the revival action.
Main Doctrine
A judgment that has become dormant after five years from its entry is not automatically enforceable; it must be revived by a new action. A tender of payment made based on a dormant judgment, especially with depreciated currency, is not a valid consignation that releases the debtor from liability if the creditor refuses to accept it, as the creditor has a valid reason for refusal.