Baisa owed Regis 1,000 pesos payable in two installments, but won the lottery and tried to pay early while Regis was abroad. Regis refused payment while away so Baisa consigned the money with the court. When Regis returned and demanded payment, Baisa refused, arguing the debt was already paid via consignation. Regis then sued Baisa for collection of the sum.
1. No, there was no valid tender of payment since Regis was not present to accept payment as agreed and required by law.
2. Potentially yes, if Baisa complied with requisites of a valid consignation under Article 1250 of
Baisa owed Regis 1,000 pesos payable in two installments, but won the lottery and tried to pay early while Regis was abroad. Regis refused payment while away so Baisa consigned the money with the court. When Regis returned and demanded payment, Baisa refused, arguing the debt was already paid via consignation. Regis then sued Baisa for collection of the sum.
1. No, there was no valid tender of payment since Regis was not present to accept payment as agreed and required by law.
2. Potentially yes, if Baisa complied with requisites of a valid consignation under Article 1250 of
Baisa owed Regis 1,000 pesos payable in two installments, but won the lottery and tried to pay early while Regis was abroad. Regis refused payment while away so Baisa consigned the money with the court. When Regis returned and demanded payment, Baisa refused, arguing the debt was already paid via consignation. Regis then sued Baisa for collection of the sum.
1. No, there was no valid tender of payment since Regis was not present to accept payment as agreed and required by law.
2. Potentially yes, if Baisa complied with requisites of a valid consignation under Article 1250 of
500.00 to Regis on January 18, 2017 and the remaining 500 will be paid on January 20, 2017. On January 17, 2017 Baisa won in a Jueteng. Hence, she decided to pay the entire amount on that the same day. However, Regis was in Zimbabwe attending the Sinulog Festival and since he is out of the country and is schedule to return on January 18, 2017 he refused to accept the payment. This prompted Baisa to have the 1,000.00 consigned before the RTC of Quezon City. Regis returned to the Philippines on January 18, 2017 he ask Baisa for the payment of the debt. But the latter refused. On January 19, 2017, Regis to filed a suit for collection of sum of money before the RTC of Quezon City. Baisa raised an argument that she has already consigned the payment to the Court and as a matter of fact she have already paid the entire debt. Hence, she shouldnt be held liable for the principal amount and interest.
Questions (5 points each)
1. Is there a valid tender of payment? 2. Is there a valid Consignation? 3. Is the argument of Baisa correct? 4. Is Regis has the right to file the suit against Baisa? Support your answer with any of the following: 1. by citing any related cases that you have read 2. by applying the requisites of the valid tender of payment or consignation in the case. 3. By applying any related provision of the Civil Code in the case
Richard Cardali, Libellant-Appellant v. A/s Glittre, D/s I/s Garonne, A/s Marina, A/s Standard and International Terminal Operating Company, Respondents-Appellees-Appellants, and Hooper Lumber Company, Respondent-Impleaded-Appellee, 360 F.2d 271, 2d Cir. (1966)