Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Papa V Au Valencia 13

    Uploaded by

    J Yasser Pascubillo
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding the sale of a parcel of land. It discusses that [1] the petitioner sold land to the respondent, which had previously been mortgaged, [2] the respondent paid partly in cash and partly by check for the purchase, and [3] over 10 years later, the petitioner claimed he did not cash the check. The Supreme Court held that [1] it is presumed the check was cashed after 10 years, and [2] even if not cashed, the petitioner's unreasonable delay impaired the check, so [3] payment is considered effective and the sale is valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Papa V Au Valencia 13

    Uploaded by

    J Yasser Pascubillo
    43 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding the sale of a parcel of land. It discusses that [1] the petitioner sold land to the respondent, which had previously been mortgaged, [2] the respondent paid partly in cash and partly by check for the purchase, and [3] over 10 years later, the petitioner claimed he did not cash the check. The Supreme Court held that [1] it is presumed the check was cashed after 10 years, and [2] even if not cashed, the petitioner's unreasonable delay impaired the check, so [3] payment is considered effective and the sale is valid.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    207569177-Papa-v-Au-Valencia-13

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding the sale of a parcel of land. It discusses that [1] the petitioner sold land to the respondent, which had previously been mortgaged, [2] the respondent paid partly in cash and partly by check for the purchase, and [3] over 10 years later, the petitioner claimed he did not cash the check. The Supreme Court held that [1] it is presumed the check was cashed after 10 years, and [2] even if not cashed, the petitioner's unreasonable delay impaired the check, so [3] payment is considered effective and the sale is valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    43 views2 pages

    Papa V Au Valencia 13

    Uploaded by

    J Yasser Pascubillo
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding the sale of a parcel of land. It discusses that [1] the petitioner sold land to the respondent, which had previously been mortgaged, [2] the respondent paid partly in cash and partly by check for the purchase, and [3] over 10 years later, the petitioner claimed he did not cash the check. The Supreme Court held that [1] it is presumed the check was cashed after 10 years, and [2] even if not cashed, the petitioner's unreasonable delay impaired the check, so [3] payment is considered effective and the sale is valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 105188. January 23, 1998.]

    MYRON C. PAPA, Administrator of the Testate Estate of Angela M.


    Butte, Petitioner, v. A.U. VALENCIA and CO. INC., FELIX PEÑARROYO, SPS.
    ARSENIO B. REYES & AMANDA SANTOS, and DELFIN JAO, Respondents.

    FACTS:

    *Petitioner Myron C. Papa, acting as attorney-in-fact of Angela M. Butte, sold to


    respondent Peñarroyo, through respondent Valencia, a parcel of land.

    *Prior to the alleged sale, the said property, together with several other parcels of land
    likewise owned by Angela M. Butte, had been mortgaged by her to the Associated
    Banking Corporation (now Associated Citizens Bank).

    *Despite representations made by herein respondents to the bank to release the title to
    the property sold to respondent Peñarroyo, the bank refused to release it unless and
    until all the mortgaged properties of the late Angela M. Butte were also redeemed.

    * A.U. Valencia and Co., Inc. (Valencia) and Felix Peñarroyo (Peñarroyo) filed with the
    Regional Trial Court a complaint for specific performance against herein petitioner
    Myron C. Papa, in his capacity as administrator of the Testate Estate of one Angela M.
    Butte. (1982)

    * The trial court rendered a decision ordering Papa (defendant) to execute a Deed of
    Absolute Sale in favor of (plaintiff) Felix Peñarroyo covering the property in question and
    to deliver peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property to the said plaintiff,
    free from any liens and encumbrances.

    * Petitioner appealed the aforesaid decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals
    alleging among others that the sale was never "consummated" as he did not encash the
    check (in the amount of P40,000.00) given by respondents Valencia and Peñarroyo in
    payment of the full purchase price of the subject lot. He maintained that what said
    respondents had actually paid was only the amount of P5,000.00 (in cash) as earnest
    money. (1973)

    *The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

    *Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the check was encashed and can be considered effective
    as payment.

    HELD:
    *Petitioner’s assertion that he never encashed the aforesaid check is not substantiated.

    *After more than ten (10) years from the payment in part by cash and in part by check,
    the presumption is that the check had been encashed.

    *Granting that petitioner had never encashed the check, his failure to do so for more
    than ten (10) years undoubtedly resulted in the impairment of the check through his
    unreasonable and unexplained delay.

    *While it is true that the delivery of a check produces the effect of payment only when it
    is cashed, pursuant to Art. 1249 of the Civil Code, the rule is otherwise if the debtor is
    prejudiced by the creditor’s unreasonable delay in presentment.

    *The acceptance of a check implies an undertaking of due diligence in presenting it for


    payment, and if he from whom it is received sustains loss by want of such diligence, it
    will be held to operate as actual payment of the debt or obligation for which it was given.

    *It has, likewise, been held that if no presentment is made at all, the drawer cannot be
    held liable irrespective of loss or injury unless presentment is otherwise excused.

    *This is in harmony with Article 1249 of the Civil Code under which payment by way of
    check or other negotiable instrument is conditioned on its being cashed, except when
    through the fault of the creditor, the instrument is impaired.

    *The payee of a check would be a creditor under this provision and if its non-payment is
    caused by his negligence, payment will be deemed effected and the obligation for which
    the check was given as conditional payment will be discharged.  

    *Considering that respondents Valencia and Peñarroyo had fulfilled their part of the
    contract of sale by delivering the payment of the purchase price, said respondents,
    therefore, had the right to compel petitioner to deliver to them the owner’s duplicate of
    TCT No. 28993 of Angela M. Butte and the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
    lot in question.

    WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DENIED and the Decision of the Court
    of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

    You might also like