Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 542 views

    Del Legarda V Miailhe

    Uploaded by

    Hartel Buyuccan
    This document summarizes a court case from 1951 regarding alternative obligations. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for unjustly refusing payment to discharge a mortgage indebtedness. The defendant argued there was an agreement to postpone payment of interest until the war ended. The court ruled that the defendant could not insist on payment in English currency under the agreement. Even if no agreement existed, the deposit of payment in Philippine currency with the court did not legally discharge the obligation because it was made via certified check rather than legal tender. Therefore, the plaintiffs' obligation to the defendant was not relieved.

    Copyright:

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

    Del Legarda V Miailhe

    Uploaded by

    Hartel Buyuccan
    542 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case from 1951 regarding alternative obligations. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for unjustly refusing payment to discharge a mortgage indebtedness. The defendant argued there was an agreement to postpone payment of interest until the war ended. The court ruled that the defendant could not insist on payment in English currency under the agreement. Even if no agreement existed, the deposit of payment in Philippine currency with the court did not legally discharge the obligation because it was made via certified check rather than legal tender. Therefore, the plaintiffs' obligation to the defendant was not relieved.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    del legarda v miailhe

    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 from 1951 regarding alternative obligations. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for unjustly refusing payment to discharge a mortgage indebtedness. The defendant argued there was an agreement to postpone payment of interest until the war ended. The court ruled that the defendant could not insist on payment in English currency under the agreement. Even if no agreement existed, the deposit of payment in Philippine currency with the court did not legally discharge the obligation because it was made via certified check rather than legal tender. Therefore, the plaintiffs' obligation to the defendant was not relieved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    542 views1 page

    Del Legarda V Miailhe

    Uploaded by

    Hartel Buyuccan
    This document summarizes a court case from 1951 regarding alternative obligations. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for unjustly refusing payment to discharge a mortgage indebtedness. The defendant argued there was an agreement to postpone payment of interest until the war ended. The court ruled that the defendant could not insist on payment in English currency under the agreement. Even if no agreement existed, the deposit of payment in Philippine currency with the court did not legally discharge the obligation because it was made via certified check rather than legal tender. Therefore, the plaintiffs' obligation to the defendant was not relieved.

    Copyright:

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

    CLARA TAMBUNTING DE LEGARDA, ET AL vs.

    VICTORIA DESBARATS MIAILHE, substituting


    WILLIAM J. B. BURKE
    G.R. No. L-3435, April 28, 1951

    PONENTE: Bautista Angelo, J.


    TOPIC: Alternative Obligations

    FACTS:
    On June 3, 1944, plaintiffs filed a complaint against the original defendant William J. B. Burke,
    alleging defendant's unjustified refusal to accept payment in discharge of a mortgage indebtedness in
    his favor, and praying that the latter be ordered (1) to receive the sum of P75,920.83 deposited by
    plaintiff Clara Tambunting de Legarda, the mortgagor, on the same date with the clerk of this court in
    payment of the mortgage indebtedness of said plaintiff to defendant herein, (2) to execute the
    corresponding deed of release of mortgage, and (30 to pay damages in the sum of P1,000.
    The gist of defendant's answer, is that plaintiffs have no cause of action for the reason that at
    the instance of plaintiff Clara Tambunting de Legarda an agreement was had on May 26, 1944,
    whereunder defendant condoned the interests due and to become due on the mortgage
    indebtedness till the termination of the war, in consideration of the undertaking of said plaintiff (with
    the consent of her husband Vicente L. Legarda, the other plaintiff) to pay her obligation to defendant
    upon such termination of the war; and that the war then had not yet terminated.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the defendant could insist on the payment of English currency even if he could
    do so without exposing himself to bodily peril under the stipulation just mentioned.

    RULING:
    Our answer is in the negative. The court correctly held that the consignation was unvailing and
    that it did not produced any legal effect because the defendant did not accept it and it was not in the
    form of money or legal tender. Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that payment of debts of money
    shall be made in the specie stipulated and, should it not be possible to deliver such specie, in silver or
    gold coin legally current; and provides further, that the delivery of promissory notes payable to order,
    or drafts or other commercial paper, shall produced the effects of payment only when realized or
    when, by the fault of the creditor, the privileges inherent in their negotiable character have been lost.
    Under this legal provision the defendant was under a duty to accept the check because it is known
    that it does not constitute legal tender, and the consignation having been refused, it did not produce
    any legal effect and could not be considered as payment made by the plaintiff of the repurchase price.
    Even if the claim of the plaintiff that Clara Tambunting de Legarda did not enter into any
    agreement with the defendant William J. B. Burke regarding payment of her obligation, subject to
    condonation of interest, after the termination of the war, is correct, and even if the tender of payment
    by Clara Tambunting of her obligation was made in Philippine currency in pursuance of the mortgage
    contract, yet the consignation made in Court can not have any legal effect for the simple reason that
    it was made by means of a certified check, which is not a legal tender within the meaning of the law.
    It is obvious, therefore, that such consignation did not have the effect of relieving her from her
    obligation to the defendant.

    You might also like