1) Mora Accipiendi

 MANUEL vs. CA, G.R. No. 95469, July 25, 1991

Facts:
Mr. and Mrs. de Jesus, lessor, were the owners of the apartment rented by Mr. Agapito Manuel. It
was agreed by both parties that the payment should be done on a month to month basis for a
monthly rental of 466.00, payable in advance. The lessee wasn't able to pay the rentals from the
month of May to August 31, 1987. On July 9, 1987, spouses de Jesus sent a demand letter to
the Mr. Manuel to pay the unpaid rentals and vacate the apartment within 5 days from receipt
thereof. The lessee's defense was that the lessor refused to accept the payment and that the said
payment was deposited at UPCB with
the acct. No. 8893 in the name of Mario Manuel de Jesus, son of the lessor. MTC ruled in favor
of the lessor that the lessee should vacate, surrender the possession of the premises,
pay the unpaid rentals and 5,000 as attorney's fees. Then, the judgement was affirmed by the
CA in toto. It was appealed on SC.

Issue:
Whether or not the contention of the petitioner that the private respondents are in mora
accipiendi is tenable.

Ruling:
NO. Sec. 5(b) of BP Blg. 25, as amended provides that in case of refusal by the lessor to accept
payment of the rental agreed upon, the lessee shall either deposit, by way of consignation, the
amount in court or in bank in the name of and with notice of the lessor. The failure of herein
petitioner to comply with said requirement makes the consignation defective and give rise to a
cause of action for ejectment. Compliance with the requisites of a valid consignation is
mandatory. Substantial compliance is not enough