Esguerra vs. Villanueva
ESGUERRA V. VILLANUEVA
Facts
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
Esguerra executed a lease in favor of de Guzman in Esguerra-Gueco Building in Dagupan City. Beginning July 1961. However, de Guzman failed to pay his rentals for February to August 1962, and de Guzman’s mother executed a promissory note. However, the mother failed to comply with the same.
A suit then commence, however, it was settled through a compromise agreement. PhP 2,260 was paid which represented a substantial amount of the debt originally owed, albeit late in compliance with the compromise agreement. However, the Esguerras contented their receipt was not tantamount to the acceptance of the fulfillment of the obligation.
Issue
Whether the de Guzmans have complied with the obligation fully.
Held
The verb, “accept” as used in Article 1235 means to take as “satisfactory or sufficient” or “to give assent to” or to “agree” to incomplete or partial performance. The Esguerras did not assent to the payment.
The law does not require that the objection of the creditor be made in a particular manner or at any particular time. The acts of the creditor binds his acceptance or assent to the fulfillment of the obligation.
ESGUERRA v VILLANUEVA
Petitioner Esguerra and respondent de Guzman entered into acontract whereby Esguerra leased to de Guzman a portion of hisbuilding for a term of 10 years beginning from July 12 1961 for amonthly rental of P300 up to July 11 1962 and P400 thereafter. DeGuzman failed to pay the rental from February to August 1962aggregating P1800, in addition to the sum of P300 (purchase priceof equipment bought by him from the Esguerras. Because of this,respondent’s mother, Segunda de Guzman executed in favor of theesguerras a promissory note for P2,100 (P1000 due on August 121962 and P1100 not later than Augus 31 1962, upon default of thefirst installment, the entire value becomes due and demandable).De Guzman failed to pay
Facts
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
Esguerra executed a lease in favor of de Guzman in Esguerra-Gueco Building in Dagupan City. Beginning July 1961. However, de Guzman failed to pay his rentals for February to August 1962, and de Guzman’s mother executed a promissory note. However, the mother failed to comply with the same.
A suit then commence, however, it was settled through a compromise agreement. PhP 2,260 was paid which represented a substantial amount of the debt originally owed, albeit late in compliance with the compromise agreement. However, the Esguerras contented their receipt was not tantamount to the acceptance of the fulfillment of the obligation.
Issue
Whether the de Guzmans have complied with the obligation fully.
Held
The verb, “accept” as used in Article 1235 means to take as “satisfactory or sufficient” or “to give assent to” or to “agree” to incomplete or partial performance. The Esguerras did not assent to the payment.
The law does not require that the objection of the creditor be made in a particular manner or at any particular time. The acts of the creditor binds his acceptance or assent to the fulfillment of the obligation.
ESGUERRA v VILLANUEVA
Petitioner Esguerra and respondent de Guzman entered into acontract whereby Esguerra leased to de Guzman a portion of hisbuilding for a term of 10 years beginning from July 12 1961 for amonthly rental of P300 up to July 11 1962 and P400 thereafter. DeGuzman failed to pay the rental from February to August 1962aggregating P1800, in addition to the sum of P300 (purchase priceof equipment bought by him from the Esguerras. Because of this,respondent’s mother, Segunda de Guzman executed in favor of theesguerras a promissory note for P2,100 (P1000 due on August 121962 and P1100 not later than Augus 31 1962, upon default of thefirst installment, the entire value becomes due and demandable).De Guzman failed to pay