Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

DEL CARMEN vs SABORDO

G.R. No. 181723


August 11, 2014

PETITIONER: Elizabeth del Carmen


RESPONDENTS: Spouses Restituto and Mima Sabordo

FACTS: In 1961, spouses Toribio and Eufrocina Suico (Suico spouses), with other business
partners, entered into a business venture of rice and corn mill at Mandaue City, Cebu. They
loaned from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and mortgaged four parcels of land
owned by Suico spouses, Lots 506, 512, 513 and 514, and another lot owned by their business
partner, Juliana Del Rosario. They failed to pay their loan obligations so DBP foreclosed the
properties to which they did not also redeem so the latter consolidated its ownership over the
same. However, DBP later allowed the Suico spouses and Flores spouses (substitute for Del
Rosario) to repurchase the subject lots by way of a conditional sale for P240,571. The Suico and
Flores spouses were able to pay the downpayment and first monthly amortization but no monthly
installments were made thereafter. Threatened with the cancellation of the conditional sale, both
spouses sold their rights over the properties to respondents Restituto and Mima Sabordo, subject
to the condition that the latter shall pay the balance of the sale price. In addition to this, Suico and
Flores spouses executed a supplemental agreement whereby they affirmed that what was actually
sold to respondents were Lots 512 and 513, while Lots 506 and 514 were given as usufructuaries.
DBP approved of the sale of rights. Subsequently, respondents were able to repurchase the
foreclosed properties.
Then, Restituto Sabordo filed with the CFI of Negros Occidental an original action for
declaratory relief with damages and prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction raising the issue of
whether or not the Suico spouses have the right to recover from respondents Lots 596 and 514.
The trial court ruled the Suico spouses have the right to redeem or buy back until August 31, 1987.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the CFI's decision and modified that right of repurchase would be until
October 31, 1990. Furthermore, in a resolution dated February 13, 1991, the CA granted the Suico
spouses an additional period of 90 days from notice within which to exercise their option to
repurchase.
Toribio Suico died leaving his widow, Eufrocina, and others as legal heirs. Later, they
discovered that respondents mortgaged Lots 506 and 514 with Republic Planters Bank (RPB) as
security for loan which, subsequently, became delinquent. Thereafter, alleging that they are ready
to pay P127,500 but cannot determine as to whom payment shall be made, petitioner and co-heirs
filed a Complaint with the RTC San Carlos City seeking to compel respondents and RPB to
interplead and litigate between themselves their interests on the sum of money. Also, they prayed
that respondents be directed to substitute Lots 506 and 514 with other properties as collateral for
their outstanding obligation with RPB and that the latter be ordered to accept the substitute
collateral and release of the mortgage on the said lots. Upon filing of the complaint, the heirs of
Toribio deposited the said amount with the RTC. Both respondents and RPB filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground that there is no cause of action as RPB has no legal right nor claim over the
lots. The RTC dismissed the complaint to which the CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not Interpleader is the right remedy.

HELD: No. There was no valid consignation made by the petitioner. Consignation is the act of of
depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or
refuses to accept payment, and it generally requires a prior tender of payment or the manifestation
by the debtor to the creditor of his desire to comply with his obligation, with the offer of immediate
performance. In the case, petitioners, upon making the deposit with the RTC, did not ask the trial
court that respondents be notified to receive the amount that they have deposited. In fact, there
was no tender of payment. Instead, what petitioners prayed for is that respondents and RPB be
directed to interplead with one another to determine their alleged respective rights over the
consigned amount; that respondents be likewise directed to substitute the subject lots with other
real properties as collateral for their loan and that RPB be also directed to accept the substitute
real properties as collateral. Nonetheless, the trial court correctly ruled that interpleader is not the
proper remedy because RPB did not make any claim whatsoever over the amount consigned by
petitioners with the court.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen