1
Eduque vs. Ocampo (GR L-222, 26 April 1950) Facts: On 16 February 1935, Dr. Jose Eduque secured two loans from Mariano Ocampo de Leon, Dona Escolastica delos Reyes and Don Jose M. Ocampo, with amount s of P40,000 and P15,000, both payable within 20 years with interest of 5% per annum. Payment of the loans was guaranteed by mortgage on real property. On December 1943, Salvacion F. Vda de Eduque, as administratrix of the estate of Dr. Jose Eduque, tendered payment by means of a cashier’s check representing Japanese War notes to Jose M. Ocampo, who refused payment. By reason of such refusal, an action was brought and the cashier’s check was deposited in court. After trial, judgment was rendered against Ocampo compelling him to accept the amount, to pay the expenses of consignation, etc. Ocampo accepted the judgment as to the second loan but appealed as to the first loan saying that tender of payment by means of a cashier’s check representing Japanese notes is not valid. Issue: Whether there is a tender of payment by means of a cashier’s check representing war notes. Held: Japanese military notes were legal tender during the Japanese occupation; and Ocampo impliedly accepted the consignation of the cashier’s check when he asked the court that he be paid the amount of the second loan (P15,000). It is a rule that a cashier’s check may constitute a sufficient tender where no objection is made on this ground.

3 Eduque vs

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

case law Nego

Citation preview

Page 1: 3 Eduque vs

Eduque vs. Ocampo (GR L-222, 26 April 1950)

Facts: On 16 February 1935, Dr. Jose Eduque secured two loans from Mariano Ocampo de Leon, Dona Escolastica delos Reyes and Don Jose M. Ocampo, with amount s of P40,000 and P15,000, both payable within 20 years with interest of 5% per annum. Payment of the loans was guaranteed by mortgage on real property. On December 1943, Salvacion F. Vda de Eduque, as administratrix of the estate of Dr. Jose Eduque, tendered payment by means of a cashier’s check representing Japanese War notes to Jose M. Ocampo, who refused payment.

By reason of such refusal, an action was brought and the cashier’s check was deposited in court. After trial, judgment was rendered against Ocampo compelling him to accept the amount, to pay the expenses of consignation, etc. Ocampo accepted the judgment as to the second loan but appealed as to the first loan saying that tender of payment by means of a cashier’s check representing Japanese notes is not valid.

Issue: Whether there is a tender of payment by means of a cashier’s check representing war notes.

Held: Japanese military notes were legal tender during the Japanese occupation; and Ocampo impliedly accepted the consignation of the cashier’s check when he asked the court that he be paid the amount of the second loan (P15,000). It is a rule that a cashier’s check may constitute a sufficient tender where no objection is made on this ground.