Eusebio Lopez, Eusebio Lopez Jr.

, Deogracias Lirio, Soledad Lirio – Dolor and Renato Dolor

in his capacity as Judicial administrator of the Intestate Estat of the late Faustino Dolor
Vs.
Hon Carmelino Alvendia as presiding judge of branch XVI, CFI Manila, David Minsberg,
Adelaida Minsberg and City Sheriff of Manila

Date: Dec 24 1964

Ponente: J Paredes

Facts:
 Sometime in March 1957 – David and Adelaida Minsberg (R) bought a parcel of
residential land from Petitioners
 March 25 1957 – first payment of 900 pesos was handed as first payment
 April 1 1957 – amount of 1,100 pesos was paid to complete the down payment.
o On the same date, it was agreed upon that the completion of the payment
of 7,560 pesos, the certificate of title will be issued to R
 July 1958 – The Minsbergs received from P a written notice that failure to pay 5,560
pesos in 2 weeks time, the downpayment of 2,000 pesos will be forfeited and they
would lose all their rights over the lot
 July 31, 1958 – R paid and now demands the title but P
o However, P failed to deliver the same but told R to wait for a few days as the
necessary paper works were in process
 1960 – They now started construction of their house on the lot
o When they fell short to complete the house, they asked P to again to deliver
the title so they can mortgage it and obtain funds
o R were only given a certification that they have fully paid the lot but the
banks did not accept this to obtain a loan
 R instituted a civil case with CFI Manila for suffered damages due to the failure of
the petitioners to issue to them the title of the lot
 R alleged that the title was with GSIS as it was mortgaged to get 1,600,000 peso
loan
 R’s prayer
o Ordering defendants to deliver the certificate of title
o 45k damages and 4500 atty fees
o defendants to pay costs of suit
 CFI Decision
o Defendants jointly and severally to deliver to the plaintiffs a torrens title and
pay damages not later than Sept 21,1962
o If defendants fail to deliver the title or amount of 3500 pesos, it shall be raised
to 10,000 pesos and a writ of execution with damages raised to10,000 pesos
shall be immediately issued
 P was able to deliver the title but 3500 peso check was dishonored with a notation
“no arrangement”
 Motion for execution for the 10,000 pesos was presented due to the check
dishonored
 P filed an opposition stating that it was a mere “oversight” for the cashier of the
bank and the check was good and valid and supported by the manifestation of
Cashier Manalo
o Along with the opposition was the amount of 3,277.38 was deposited to show
good faith
 Respondent judge order
 o Writ of execution of 10,000 pesos be issued
 P presented an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and to lift the writ of execution
o Arguing that there was already an arrangement between them and the
bank thru Atty Eusebio Lopez
o Upon learning of the dishonor, they informed R to redeposit the payment
o And before the issuance of the execution, they deposied the amount to
court
o Thus, there is substantial compliance on their part
o Honest mistake/ excusable negligence
 On Dec 12, 1962 – Urgent Ex Parte Motion to suspend proceedings on writ of
execution
o That the death of Faustino Dolor, his ownership over the Dolor’s Pharmacy,
which was being levied upon, had ceased, and therefore could not be
reached by the Writ of Execution
 Dec 14, 1962 denied motion to suspend on the writ of execution
o In issuing a check, the defendants have decided to effect a method of
satisfying their obligayion as fraught with danger, to say the least
o Plaintiff could refuse to accept check as it is not a legal tender
o Delivery of mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only
when they have been cashed or through the fault of the creditor have been
impaired
o Immaterial WON defendants had money with the drawee bank to cover the
value of the check
 Now goes to SC on certiorari
 SC Ruling
o Now abuse of discretion of Judge in issuing said orders
o P admit their failure to live up to the compromise agreement and where time
was of the essence
o From rendition of judgement up to the date they were to comply was around
1 month
 Court cannot believe that Cashier was not informed with that span of
such time
 Could have already ascertained the arrangement by that time
 No arrangement was admitted by Cashier in its manifestation
o In lower court refusing to allow P to submit evidence on supposed “oversight”
 Certiorari is questions of law and not on mistakes of fact or errors of
judgement
o Having failed to comply with the decision, P have no cause to lament
o The Bank having accepted the alleged arrangement, had constituted itself as
the agent of the P. The Principal is responsible for the acts of the agent, done
within the scope of authority, and should bear the damages caused upon 3rd
parties
o Dispositive – dismissed for lack of merit
o