1.

Mora Accipiendi

• MANUEL vs. CA, G.R. NO. 95469 July 25, 1991

FACTS

MANUEL vs. CA, G.R. NO. 95469 July 25, 1991 is about the complaint force filed by the private
respondents against herein petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, For not paying
rentals on the apartments owned by private respondents and rented by a petitioner.

ISSUE

The Private Respondents who’s the owner of the apartment rented by the petitioner, with a
month-month basis of payment for P466.00 who’s payable in advance. But the petitioner failed to pay in
advance in May 1987. On July 9, 1987 the private respondents sent a demand letter to the Petitioner,
which requires the petitioner to pay his rental and avoid the least premises demand within five (5) days,
other wise the private respondents will force to stop to file the appropriate legal actions. The demand
letter was received in July 14, 1987, the petitioner addressed a letter dated July 15, 1987 to private
respondents , stating the amount of rentals, which the private respondents refused to get.

RULING

Accordingly, the case is DENIED, the judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

2. Compensatio Morae

• CORTES vs. CA, G.R. NO. 126083, July 12, 2006

FACTS

On June 13, 1996, revoke the contract of sale petitioner and private respondents, for purchasing
price of P3,700,000,000, corporation as the buyer, cortes as the seller. On September 1983 the parties
executed absolute sale containing the following:

 ONE MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND [P1,500,000.00] Pesos, will be payable in one (1)
year for the registrations of documents, including the tax.

Cortes obligation is not only to fix the deed but to set into motion of process, which transfer the tittle of
the lot.

ISSUE

Whether there is a delay to the parties which justify the repeal of the contract.

RULING

For failing to pay the full amount of P2,200,000 despites cortes delivery, repeal of contracts of
proper. Since Cortes did not perform his obligations, the contract requiring the corporation to pay in full
down payment. For the latter to pay in full the petition is DENIED.

3. When demand not necessary

• RODRIGO RIVERA VS. SPOUSES SALVADOR C. CHUA AND VIOLETA S. CHUA/ SPOUSES SALVADOR
C. CHUA AND VIOLETA S. CHUA VS. RODRIGO RIVERA, G.R. Nos. 184458/184472. January 14, 2015
(1169)

FACTS

Rivera and Salvador are kumpradres, Rivera from spouses Chua, in February 24, 1995. Rivera
promises to pay the sum of One hundred Twenty Thousand Philippine Currency (120,000.00) on
December 31, 1995 with five (5) percent monthly interest. Spouses Chua received another check
conveying Rivera, with correct dated, but has a blank as a payee. The checks have a partial loan of Rivera
amounted P120,000.00, two check was dishonoured for the reason “account closed”.

ISSUES

Rivera denied his indebtedness, he continues to deny the promissory note. Rivera point out to
Spouses Chua “ never demanded payment for the loan nor interest thereof (sic) from [Rivera] for almost
four (4) years from the time of the alleged default in payment”. Rivera said there is no evidence for his
asseveration.

RULING

Rivera assumptions is unconfirmed and directly disputed by the testimony of handwritten from
NBI.