cralaw:red : Philipppine Supreme Court Jurisprudence" /> cralaw:red : March 1952 Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions" /> cralaw:red : March 1952, Supreme Court, SC, Decisions, Jurisprudence, Resolutions, Supreme Court Decisions, Chief Justice, Associate Justice">

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1952 > March 1952 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4854 March 21, 1952 - JOSE R. JACINTO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

091 Phil25cralaw:red:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[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.

SYLLABUS


1. EXECUTION; MANDAMUS, WHEN ISSUED. — Where a decision rendered upon stipulation is for the payment of a certain sum of money in instalments with the understanding that failure to pay any instalment on time, would cause the remaining unpaid instalments to be due and demandable by execution, and the judgment debtor failed to pay the first instalment on time, the right to demand execution arose.

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.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


In civil case No. 518 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (which originated from the justice of the peace court of Gapan), a decision was rendered, upon a stipulation, ordering Segundo Fernando to pay to Jose R. Jacinto and Tomasa G. Jacinto the sum of P320.00, payable in three instalments, the first instalment of P100 within the month of February, 1951, the second instalment of P100 within the month of February, 1952, and the balance of P120.00 in the month of February, 1953, without interest, with the understanding that failure to pay any of the instalments on time would cause the remaining unpaid instalments to be due and demandable by execution. Segundo Fernando failed to pay the first instalment of P100 within the month of February, 1951, as a result of which Jose R. Jacinto and Tomasa G. Jacinto filed in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija on March 12, 1951, a motion for execution. On March 29, 1951, before the motion could be heard and acted upon, the attorney for Segundo Fernando sent a letter to Jose R. Jacinto inclosing a postal money order for P100. In said letter, it was admitted that the remittance was a belated payment of first instalment, with the request, however, that the same be considered a substantial compliance with the decision and that the motion for execution be withdrawn.

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,.

"Yours sincerely,.

"(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.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1952 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4961 March 5, 1952 - ASUNCION PARKER v. HON. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO

    091 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-3821 March 17, 1952 - PRIMITIVA CANALES v. FILOTEO ARROGANTE

    091 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-4197 March 20, 1952 - FIDELA SALES DE GONZAGA v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    091 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-4556 March 21, 1952 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    091 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-4833 March 21, 1952 - FRANCISCO R. VILLAROMAN v. HON. GAVINO S. ABAYA

    091 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. L-4854 March 21, 1952 - JOSE R. JACINTO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

    091 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-4330 March 24, 1952 - MANILA ORIENTAL SAWMILL CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL.

    091 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4621 March 24, 1952 - P. M. P. NAVIGATION COMPANY v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    091 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-3859 March 25, 1952 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    091 Phil 35

  • G.R. No. L-4594 March 26, 1952 - VIRGILIO V. VILLANUEVA and ANGELITA VILLANUEVA SANIDAD v. FIDEL VILLANUEVA

    091 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-3526 March 27, 1952 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDA L. GARCIA

    091 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-3217 March 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. DIOSCORO PINUELA

    091 Phil 53

  • G.R. Nos. L-4146 & L-4147 March 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MENDOZA

    091 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-4604 March 28, 1952 - ZAMBOANGA TRANSPORTATION CO. v. ERNESTO FARGAS

    091 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. L-4618 March 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO GOLEZ

    091 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4834 March 28, 1952 - LIBERAL LABOR UNION v. PHIL. CAN CO.

    091 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-4057 March 31, 1952 - CONNEL BROS. COMPANY (PHIL.) v. FRANCISCO ADUNA, ET AL.

    091 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-4111 March 31, 1952 - UNITED WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., ET AL.

    091 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-4271 March 31, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CO HAP, ET AL.

    091 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-4423 March 31, 1952 - UNION OF THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO.

    091 Phil 93

  • G.R. Nos. L-4579 & L-4674 March 31, 1952 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. HON. JOSE TEODORO

    091 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. L-5422 March 31, 1952 - FELIX T. CARO v. SILVINO M. GUMPAL Y OTROS

    091 Phil 107