Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court 1.

1. The Court ruled that the private respondent used a certified personal
191 SCRA 411 | G.R. No. 72110 | November 16, 1990 check which is not legal tender nor the currency stipulated, and
Petitioner: Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, inc. therefore, cannot constitute valid tender of payment.
Respondents: Intermediate Appellate Court and Robes-Fransisco
Realty and Development Corporation In the case of Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals, it was ruled
that: since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and
FACTS: not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself,
• In 1971, a contract over a 20,655sqm parcel of land was sold by operate as payment. A check, whether a manager’s check or
petitioner to private respondent for P123,930.00. ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in
o Downpayment of P23,930.00 payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be
Balance of P100,000.00 plus 12% interest per annum to be refused receipt by the creditor.
paid within 4 years from execution of the contract, on or
before July 7, 1975. Hence, where the tender of payment by the private respondent was
• The contract also provides for cancellation, forfeiture of previous not valid for failure to comply with the requisite payment in legal
payments, and reconveyance of the land in question in case the tender or currency stipulated within the grace period and s such, was
private respondent would fail to complete payment within the said validly refused receipt by the petitioner, the subsequent consignation
period. did not operate to discharge the former from its obligation to the
• On July 17, 1975 (period already expired), the new president of the latter.
company wrote the petitioner requesting that her company be
allowed to pay the principal amount of P100,000.00 in 3 equal DISPOSITION:
installments of 6 months each with the first installment and the The decision of the respondent court is SET ASIDE and ANNULLED.
accrued interest of P24,000.00 to be paid immediately upon
approval. The same request was denied, but private respondents
were granted a grace period of 5 days to pay the balance of
P124,000.00.
• The private respondent’s president alleged that the petitioner refused
to accept tender of payment made by the former on the last day of
the grace period. Petitioner, on the other hand, said that it did not
execute a deed of sale and it cancelled the contract and considered
all previous statements forfeited on the ground that private
respondent was not able to pay its full obligation.
• The trial court, on ruling against private respondent, stressed that
private respondent was not able to present the certified personal
check allegedly tendered as payment, or a least its Xerox copy. It
was also found that its president had insufficient funds available to
fulfill the obligation. However, the Intermediate Appellate Court
reversed the lower court’s decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not an offer of a check is a valid tender of payment of an
obligation under a contract which stipulates that the consideration of
the sale is in Philippine currency

RULING + RATIO:

Kool Kids 2016 | ALS 2D N-01-01 Roman Catholic Bishop v. IAC.pdf

AURELIO | BALLESTEROS | BATUNGBACAL | BILIRAN | CADIENTE | DONES | GALLARDO | GESTA | GUBATAN | PINTOR | SY | TOLEDO