FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 105188. January 23, 1998.] MYRON . !"!

", "#$%n%&'ra'or o( ')* T*&'a'* +&'a'* o( "n,*-a M. .u''*, Petitioner, /. ".0. V"1+N I" an# O. IN ., F+1I2 !+3"RROYO, S!S. "RS+NIO .. R+Y+S 4 "M"ND" S"NTOS, an# D+1FIN J"O, Respondents. F" TS5 *Petitioner Myron C. Papa, acting as attorney-in-fact of Angela M. Butte, sold to respondent Pearroyo, through respondent Valencia, a parcel of land. *Prior to the alleged sale, the said property, together with several other parcels of land li ewise owned !y Angela M. Butte, had !een "ortgaged !y her to the Associated Ban ing Corporation #now Associated Citi$ens Ban %. *&espite representations "ade !y herein respondents to the !an to release the title to the property sold to respondent Pearroyo, the !an refused to release it unless and until all the "ortgaged properties of the late Angela M. Butte were also redee"ed. * A.'. Valencia and Co., (nc. #Valencia% and )eli* Pearroyo #Pearroyo% filed with the +egional ,rial Court a co"plaint for specific perfor"ance against herein petitioner Myron C. Papa, in his capacity as ad"inistrator of the ,estate -state of one Angela M. Butte. #./01% * ,he trial court rendered a decision ordering Papa #defendant% to e*ecute a &eed of A!solute 2ale in favor of #plaintiff% )eli* Pearroyo covering the property in 3uestion and to deliver peaceful possession and en4oy"ent of the said property to the said plaintiff, free fro" any liens and encu"!rances. * Petitioner appealed the aforesaid decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals alleging a"ong others that the sale was never 5consu""ated5 as he did not encash the chec #in the a"ount of P67,777.77% given !y respondents Valencia and Pearroyo in pay"ent of the full purchase price of the su!4ect lot. 8e "aintained that what said respondents had actually paid was only the a"ount of P9,777.77 #in cash% as earnest "oney. #./:;% *,he Court of Appeals affir"ed the decision of the trial court. *8ence, this petition for review on certiorari. ISS0+5 <hether or not the chec was encashed and can !e considered effective as pay"ent. 6+1D5

*Petitioner=s assertion that he never encashed the aforesaid chec is not su!stantiated. *After "ore than ten #.7% years fro" the pay"ent in part !y cash and in part !y chec , the presu"ption is that the chec had !een encashed. *>ranting that petitioner had never encashed the chec , his failure to do so for "ore than ten #.7% years undou!tedly resulted in the i"pair"ent of the chec through his unreasona!le and une*plained delay. *<hile it is true that the delivery of a chec produces the effect of pay"ent only when it is cashed, pursuant to Art. .16/ of the Civil Code, the rule is otherwise if the de!tor is pre4udiced !y the creditor=s unreasona!le delay in present"ent. *,he acceptance of a chec i"plies an underta ing of due diligence in presenting it for pay"ent, and if he fro" who" it is received sustains loss !y want of such diligence, it will !e held to operate as actual pay"ent of the de!t or o!ligation for which it was given. *(t has, li ewise, !een held that if no present"ent is "ade at all, the drawer cannot !e held lia!le irrespective of loss or in4ury unless present"ent is otherwise e*cused. *,his is in har"ony with Article .16/ of the Civil Code under which pay"ent !y way of chec or other negotia!le instru"ent is conditioned on its !eing cashed, e*cept when through the fault of the creditor, the instru"ent is i"paired. *,he payee of a chec would !e a creditor under this provision and if its non-pay"ent is caused !y his negligence, pay"ent will !e dee"ed effected and the o!ligation for which the chec was given as conditional pay"ent will !e discharged. *Considering that respondents Valencia and Pearroyo had fulfilled their part of the contract of sale !y delivering the pay"ent of the purchase price, said respondents, therefore, had the right to co"pel petitioner to deliver to the" the owner=s duplicate of ,C, ?o. 10//; of Angela M. Butte and the peaceful possession and en4oy"ent of the lot in 3uestion. <8-+-)@+-, the petition for review is here!y &-?(-& and the &ecision of the Court of Appeals is A))(+M-&.