March 1952 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
[G.R. No. L-4854. March 21, 1952.]
JOSE R. JACINTO, ET AL., Petitioners, v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO, ET AL., Respondents.
Jose R. Jacinto for Petitioner.
Cecilio & Santiago for Respondents.
2. ID.; ID.,; RIGHT TO EXECUTION NOT WAIVED BY CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF DELAYED INSTALMENT. — The conditional acceptance of a delayed instalment did not constitute waiver of execution, where the debtor failed to fulfill the condition imposed for the acceptance.
In reply, Jose R. Jacinto addressed to the attorney for Segundo Fernando the following communication:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 29th instant, inclosing money order in the amount of P100.00 with the request that it be considered as compliance of the decision rendered in my case against Mr. Fernando; and in reply thereto, I wish to inform Mr. Fernando thru you that I may withdraw my petition for execution of the decision only on the condition that your client pay me an additional sum of One-Hundred pesos (P100.00) now, and the balance of One-hundred and twenty (P120.00) to be paid in February, 1952.
"You well know how much I have lost in this case and how easy were the terms of payment I have granted to Mr. Fernando and I hope I shall be afforded some justice now.
"Trusting to hear from you soon and suspending in the meantime the execution of the decision,.
"(Sgd.) JOSE R. JACINTO."cralaw virtua1aw library
Failing to hear further from Segundo Fernando or his attorney, Jose R. Jacinto filed in the Court of First Instance a motion, reiterating the prayer that the decision in question be executed on the ground that, although Segundo Fernando had paid P100, the balance was not paid in accordance with the terms of said decision. This motion was denied by the court on May 3, 1951. Subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied, whereupon Jose R. Jacinto and Tomasa G. Jacinto filed the present petition for mandamus against Segundo Fernando and the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
The theory of the respondents is that the petitioners, by receiving the sum of P100 from the attorney for respondent Segundo Fernando as delayed payment of the first instalment called for in the decision in civil case No. 518, impliedly waived their right to execution based on default on the part of respondent Fernando. This theory is untenable. It is plain from the reply sent by petitioner Jose R. Jacinto to the attorney for respondent Fernando, that the petitioners accepted the tendered amount of P100 subject to the express condition that respondent Fernando was to pay the additional amount of P100 immediately and the balance of P120 in February, 1952. As said condition was breached by respondent Fernando, petitioners’ right to demand execution remained in force. That the petitioners accepted the late payment of the sum of P100 is of no moment, because the failure of respondent Fernando to pay the instalment due in February, 1951, caused the entire obligation to become demandable, and the conditional acceptance of the first instalment did not alter the situation that the other two instalments were already due and demandable, at least until respondent Fernando accepted and met the condition prescribed by the petitioners.
Wherefore, the petition for mandamus is granted and the respondent Judge is hereby ordered to issue the writ of execution prayed for by the petitioners. So ordered with costs against respondent Segundo Fernando.
Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.