Del Carmen v. Sabordo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a business venture involving a rice and corn mill established in 1961 by spouses Toribio and Eufrocina Suico and their business partners. To finance this venture, they obtained a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), secured by four parcels of land owned by the Suico spouses and another lot owned by a business partner. After defaulting on the loan and failing to redeem the foreclosed properties, DBP consolidated ownership. Subsequently, DBP allowed the Suico spouses and substitute partners to repurchase the lots via a conditional sale. However, they only paid the down payment and the first amortization. Facing cancellation of the sale, they sold their rights to respondents Restituto and Mima Sabordo, who agreed to pay the balance. A supplemental agreement clarified that respondents would acquire Lots 512 and 513, with Lots 506 and 514 granted to them as usufructuaries. Respondents eventually repurchased these properties from DBP. Procedural History: In 1976, Restituto Sabordo filed an action for declaratory relief with damages, questioning the Suico spouses' right to recover Lots 506 and 514. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Suico spouses, granting them a redemption period. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified this, extending the redemption period and setting a repurchase price of P127,500.00, while maintaining the respondents' usufructuary rights. The CA later granted an additional 90-day period for redemption. After Toribio Suico's death, his heirs, including petitioner Elizabeth Del Carmen, discovered that respondents had mortgaged Lots 506 and 514. Claiming readiness to pay the redemption price but uncertain of whom to pay, the heirs filed an interpleader case against respondents and the mortgagee bank (RPB), seeking to compel them to litigate their claims and to substitute the collateral. The RTC dismissed the heirs' complaint for lack of merit, and the CA affirmed this decision on appeal, finding the judicial deposit of P127,500.00 invalid. The Petition: Petitioner Elizabeth Del Carmen, as one of the heirs of Toribio Suico, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The sole assignment of error posits that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's ruling that the judicial deposit of P127,500.00 made by the Suico heirs was not valid. Petitioner argues that this deposit, made in compliance with a final and executory CA decision, constituted a judicial deposit and thus did not require strict adherence to the requirements of tender of payment and consignation under Articles 1256 and 1257 of the Civil Code. The core of the petition is that the deposit, being a judicial act pursuant to a court order, should have been considered a valid payment.
Issue(s)
Whether the judicial deposit of ₱127,500.00 made by the heirs of Toribio Suico with the RTC Clerk of Court constituted a valid payment of the purchase price for Lots 506 and 514, despite the absence of a prior tender of payment to the respondents. Whether the action for interpleader was the proper remedy.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated May 25, 2007, and its Resolution dated January 24, 2008, both in CA-G.R. CV No. 75013, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the judicial deposit as consignation: The Court held that the judicial deposit of ₱127,500.00 made by petitioner and her co-heirs was not a valid consignation that produced the effect of payment. The Court reiterated the definition of consignation as the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities when the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment, generally requiring a prior tender of payment. Tender of payment is an act preparatory to consignation. In this case, the petitioner and her co-heirs, upon making the deposit, did not ask the trial court to notify the respondents to receive the deposited amount. Instead, they prayed for an interpleader action. This differed from the cited case of Arzaga v. Rumbaoa, where the deposit was accompanied by a petition for the court to notify the defendants to receive the tender of payment, which the Court considered a complete offer of payment. The requisites of a valid consignation are mandatory, and failure to strictly comply with any of them renders the consignation void. A valid prior tender of payment is one of these essential requisites. The Court found no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the CA and RTC that a prior valid tender of payment was not made. The instances where prior tender of payment is excused under Article 1256 of the Civil Code were not present in this case. Therefore, the consignation was void. On the propriety of the interpleader action: The Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that interpleader was not the proper remedy. The RTC correctly ruled that Republic Planters Bank (RPB) did not make any claim whatsoever over the amount consigned by petitioner and her co-heirs with the court. An interpleader action is proper when there are two or more parties who claim the same right to collect, which was not the situation with RPB in relation to the deposited sum.
Main Doctrine
A judicial deposit or consignation of an amount due on a judgment, to be considered valid payment, requires a prior tender of payment to the judgment creditor who refuses to accept it, unless specific exceptions under Article 1256 of the Civil Code are present. Failure to comply strictly with the requisites of a valid consignation, including a valid prior tender of payment, renders the consignation void.