Tolentino v CA

G.R. Nos. L-50405-06 August 5, 1981
Art. 1249 – Payment of debts in money shall be made in currency

Facts:

·          The De la Cruzes executed a deed of sale with the spouses Tolentino to sell the homestead land.

·          The Tolentinos constituted a first mortgage over the homestead land, together with two other parcels of land, in favor of the Bank of the Philippine Islands in Davao City.

·          Another mortgage was constituted over the said properties in favor of Philippine Banking Corporation.

·          The Tolentinos failed to pay their mortgage indebtedness to the BPI upon maturity, which judicial foreclosure sale followed in favor of the BPI.

·          Meanwhile, prior to the said foreclosure sale, the De la Cruzes filed an action with CFI Davao against the Tolentinos (including the BPI and BPC as mortgagees) for the repurchase of the homestead land under Section 119 of the Public Land Act (CA 141).

·          Accordingly, the possession of the homestead land was delivered to the De la Cruzes.

·          On separate action, the Tolentinos filed a redemption case against BPI simultaneously with the consignation of the crossed check with the City Sheriff of Davao.

Issue:

WoN in the Redemption Case consignation by crossed check satisfies the requirements set forth in Article 1249 of the New Civil Code.

Held:

            No, the Court holds that a check, even if good when offered, does not satisfy the requirements of a legal tender.

            Art. 1249 provides ‘'payment shall be made in the Currency stipulate and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines.'’

            In the case at bar, there is no quarrel that the Tolentinos had 12 months within which to redeem the properties sold at the Sheriff's sale, but the problem lies in the manner of the tender of payment made by them, granting they made one, since consignation by crossed check does not satisfy the requirements of a legal tender, and for that very reason, BPI was not legally bound to accept such tender of payment.

            Thus, the judgement appealed is affirmed with modifications.