Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    2-Eduque v. Ocampo 86 Phil 216 (1950)

    Uploaded by

    Ronald Alasa-as Atig
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a mortgage debt. A woman representing the estate of Dr. Jose Eduque tendered payment of two loans totaling 55,000 pesos to Jose M. Ocampo, one of the creditors, who refused payment. She deposited the funds in court. The lower court ruled in her favor. On appeal, Ocampo argued the tender of payment via cashier's check was invalid as it represented Japanese war notes. However, the court found he impliedly accepted the cashier's check as a valid form of payment by previously asking the court to release 15,000 pesos of the deposited funds to him. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling with costs against O

    Copyright:

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

    2-Eduque v. Ocampo 86 Phil 216 (1950)

    Uploaded by

    Ronald Alasa-as Atig
    70 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a mortgage debt. A woman representing the estate of Dr. Jose Eduque tendered payment of two loans totaling 55,000 pesos to Jose M. Ocampo, one of the creditors, who refused payment. She deposited the funds in court. The lower court ruled in her favor. On appeal, Ocampo argued the tender of payment via cashier's check was invalid as it represented Japanese war notes. However, the court found he impliedly accepted the cashier's check as a valid form of payment by previously asking the court to release 15,000 pesos of the deposited funds to him. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling with costs against O

    Original Description:

    Nego

    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 mortgage debt. A woman representing the estate of Dr. Jose Eduque tendered payment of two loans totaling 55,000 pesos to Jose M. Ocampo, one of the creditors, who refused payment. She deposited the funds in court. The lower court ruled in her favor. On appeal, Ocampo argued the tender of payment via cashier's check was invalid as it represented Japanese war notes. However, the court found he impliedly accepted the cashier's check as a valid form of payment by previously asking the court to release 15,000 pesos of the deposited funds to him. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling with costs against O

    Copyright:

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

    2-Eduque v. Ocampo 86 Phil 216 (1950)

    Uploaded by

    Ronald Alasa-as Atig
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a mortgage debt. A woman representing the estate of Dr. Jose Eduque tendered payment of two loans totaling 55,000 pesos to Jose M. Ocampo, one of the creditors, who refused payment. She deposited the funds in court. The lower court ruled in her favor. On appeal, Ocampo argued the tender of payment via cashier's check was invalid as it represented Japanese war notes. However, the court found he impliedly accepted the cashier's check as a valid form of payment by previously asking the court to release 15,000 pesos of the deposited funds to him. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling with costs against O

    Copyright:

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

    SALVACION F. VDA. DE EDUQUE, ETC.

    , plaintiff-appellee,
    vs.
    JOSE M. OCAMPO, defendant-appellant.

    Alfredo B. Cacnio and Padilla, Carlos and Fernando for appellant.


    Jose Feria for appellee.
    Delfin L. Gonzalez for plaintiff-intervenor.

    MORAN, C.J.:

    This is an action to compel acceptance of payment of a mortgage debt.

    On February 16, 1935, Dr. Jose Eduque secured two loans from Mariano Ocampo de Leon, Doña
    Escolastica de los Reyes and Don Jose M. Ocampo, the first in the amount of P40,000 and the
    second in the sum of P15,000, both payable within the period of twenty years, with interest at the
    rate of 5 per cent per annum. Payment of these two loans was guaranteed by mortgage on real
    property. In the mortgage contract it is stipulated that any of the mortgage creditors may receive
    payment and execute deeds of cancellation of the mortgage debts.

    On December 6, 1943, plaintiff and appellee, as administratrix of the estate of the deceased Dr.
    Jose Eduque, tendered payment, by means of cashier's check, of the total amount of the two loans,
    P55,000, to defendant-appellant Jose M. Ocampo, one of the creditors, who refused to accept
    payment. By reason of such refusal, an action was brought and a cashier's check for the total
    amount of P55,000 deposited in court. After trial, judgment was rendered against defendant
    compelling him to accept the P55,000 deposited in court, to issue deeds for cancellation of the
    mortgage debts, and to pay the expenses of consignation and costs.

    Defendant accepted the judgment with respect to the second loan of P15,000 upon the ground that,
    according to him, in the deed of mortgage corresponding to that loan it clearly appeared that the loan
    was payable "durante el termino de 20 años," and that the only question remaining between the
    parties is the interpretation of the first deed of mortgage regarding the first loan of P40,000. and he
    asked the court to order "que de la cantidad de P55,000 consignada en este Juzgado, se entregue
    al demandado la suma de P15,000, despues de descontar proporcionalmente cualesquiera
    cantidades por deposito y otros conceptos segun los terminos de la decision promulgada." The
    order was issued accordingly and the sum of P15,000 out of the P55,000 deposited in court was
    delivered to the defendant.

    The present appeal concerns the decision of the lower court regarding the first loan of P40,000, and
    the principal error assigned by the appellant is that tender of payment by means of a cashier's check
    representing Japanese war notes is not valid.

    We have already help that Japanese military notes were legal tender during the Japanese
    occupation. But appellant argues, further, that the consignation of a cashier's check, which is not
    legal tender, is not binding upon him. This question, however, has never been raised in the lower
    court. Upon the contrary, defendant accepted impliedly the consignation of the cashier's check when
    he himself asked the court that out of the money thus consigned he be paid the amount of the
    second loan of P15,000. It is a rule that " a cashier's check may constitute a sufficient tender where
    no objection is made on this ground." (62 C. J., p. 670; see also 40 Amer. Jur., p. 764.)

    For all the foregoing, judgment is affirmed with cost against appellant.

    Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    You might also like