0% found this document useful (0 votes)
30 views1 page

Soco Vs

The document discusses a case regarding the validity of consignation of rent payments by a lessee. It outlines the facts of the case where the lessee subleased the property and stopped paying rent. The court held that the consignation was invalid because the lessee failed to meet the legal requirements, such as prior notice and deposit of all owed amounts. The decision was reversed.

Uploaded by

rach casim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
30 views1 page

Soco Vs

The document discusses a case regarding the validity of consignation of rent payments by a lessee. It outlines the facts of the case where the lessee subleased the property and stopped paying rent. The court held that the consignation was invalid because the lessee failed to meet the legal requirements, such as prior notice and deposit of all owed amounts. The decision was reversed.

Uploaded by

rach casim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Soco vs.

Militante
No. L-58961. June 28, 1983.*

SOLEDAD SOCO, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCIS MILITANTE, Incumbent Presiding Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu, Branch XII, Cebu City and REGINO FRANCISCO, JR., respondents.

FACTS

1. Petitioner Soco (lessor) and the defendant Francisco (lessee) entered into a contract of lease of
commercial building and lot for a monthly rental of P800.00 for a period of 10 years renewable for another
10 years at the option of the lessee.
2. At some point in time, Francisco noticed that Soco did not anymore send her collector for the payment of
rentals and that there were payments made but no receipts were issued. Soon after Soco learned that
Francisco sub-leased a portion of the building to NACIDA, at a monthly rental of more than P3,000.00
which is definitely very much higher than what Francisco was paying, the latter felt that she was on the
losing end of the lease agreement so she tried to look for ways and means to terminate the contract.
3. Taking into account the factual background setting of this case, the Court holds that there was in fact a
tender of payment of the rentals made by Francisco to Soco through Comtrust and since these payments
were not accepted by Soco evidently because of her intention to evict Francisco, by all means, Francisco
was impelled to deposit the rentals with the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Cebu, Soco was notified of
this deposit. She was further notified of these payments by consignation. The City Court declared the
payments of rentals valid and effective.
ISSUE: Whether or not the consignation was valid and effective.

HELD: No. In order that consignation may be effective, the debtor must first comply with certain requirements
prescribed by law. The debtor must show (1) that there was a debt due; (2) that the consignation of the obligation
had been made because the creditor to whom tender payment was made refused to accept it, or because he was
absent or incapacitated, or because several persons claimed to be entitled to receive the amount due (Art. 1176,
Civil Code); (3) that previous notice of the consignation had been given to the person interested in the
performance of the obligation (Art. 1177, Civil Code); (4) that the amount due was placed at the disposal of the
court (Art. 1178, Civil Code); and (5) that after the consignation had been made the person interested was notified
thereof (Art. 1178, Civil Code). Failure in any of these requirements is enough ground to render a consignation
ineffective.

SC ruled that these essential requisites of a valid consignation must be complied with fully and strictly in
accordance with the law, as Articles 1256 to 1261, New Civil Code say. Substantial compliance is not enough for
that would render only a directory construction to the law. The use of the words "shall" and "must" which are
imperative, operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, positively indicate that all the essential requisites
of a valid consignation must be complied with. The Civil Code Articles expressly and explicitly direct what must be
essentially done in order that consignation shall be valid and effectual, as the law provides in Art 1257, 1258,
1249. SC held that the respondent lessee has utterly failed to prove the requisites of a valid consignation.

Decision: Reversed.

Notes:
1. Lessee has utterly failed to prove the following requisites of a valid consignation:
a. Tender of payment of the monthly rentals to the lessor except that indicated in the June.
b. The first notice to the lessor prior to consignation, except the payment referred to.
c. Lessee likewise failed to prove the second notice.
d. The actual deposit or consignation of the monthly rentals except the two cashier’s checks.
2. The tenant deposited the rentals due in court only after the lapse of two years and after the complaint for
ejectment had been filed.

You might also like