7/23/2019 Consignation Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/consignation-cases 1/3

G.R. No. 84330 May 8, 1991

RAMON Y. ASCUE, petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS (8th !"!#!o$% a$& RAMON ANTON'O, SALAOR SALENGA a$&

UL'P'A FERNANE), respondents.

Consignation 12 is the act 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. 13 Two (2 of the requisites of a valid consignation are (1 that there is a de!t due, and (2

the amount due is placed at the disposal of the court.1" Thus, where no de!t is due and owing,

consignation is not proper. 1# $n a valid consignation where the thing sought to !e deposited is a sum

of money, the amount of the de!t due is determina!le. Clearly, the su!ject matter (i.e. the amount

due in consignation cases is capa!le of pecuniary estimation. This amount sought to !e consigned

determines the jurisdiction of the court.

G.R. No. 1090*0 Ma+h 3, 1994

FEL'SA CHAN, petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, a$& GRACE CU, respondents.

Chan%s counterclaim for ejectment [in the consignation cases] is a compulsary counterclaim

!ecause it is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence which is the su!ject matter of

Cu%s complaint, viz ., the lease contract !etween them. Consequently, the Court of &ppeals erred

when it held that Chan%s cause of action for ejectment should not !e set up in a counterclaim.

'e agreed with Chan that Ching Pue vs. Gonzales is inapplica!le !ecause in Ching Pue the

consignation cases were filed with the Court of irst $nstance which did not have jurisdiction over

ejectment cases) necessarily, no counterclaim for ejectment could have !een interposed therein.

The ratio decidendi of the said case is that consignation is not proper where the refusal of the

creditor to accept tender of payment is with just cause. *ne will search therein in vain even for

an obiter dictum which suggests that an action for ejection cannot !e set up in a counterclaim. $n the

instant case, the ejectment was set up as a counterclaim in the +TC which has jurisdiction over it

and Cu joined that issue and the incidents thereto !y her answer to the counterclaim and the

counterclaim to the counterclaim.

G.R. No. 903-9 /$ 9, 199*

OHANNES R'ESENEC2, petitioner,vs.THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, a$& UERGEN MA'LE, respondents.

7/23/2019 Consignation Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/consignation-cases 2/3

rivate respondent%s acceptance of the amount consigned !y the petitioner-de!tor with a reservation

or qualification as to the correctness of the petitioner%s o!ligation, is legally permissi!le. There is

authority for the view that !efore a consignation can !e judicially declared proper, the creditor may

prevent the withdrawal of the amount consigned !y the de!tor, !y accepting the consignation, even

with reservations (Tolentino, Civil Code of the hil., ol. $, 1/03Ed ., p. 310, citing  3 lerena 23.

$n ruling that there was a valid consignation and that the respondent creditor could accept the same

with a reservation of his damages and other claims, the Court of &ppeals relied on the 1/2" case

of Sing Juco vs. Cuaycong , " hil. 1. $n that case, the defendants consigned in court the amount

which they had received from the plaintiff as the price of sugar, the sale of which did not materiali4e.

The defendants were given the alternative of delivering the sugar or returning the price per

stipulation in the contract. 'e ruled that plaintiff%s acceptance of the money consigned,

unconditionally and without reservation, was a waiver of his other claims under the contract.

 A sensu contrario, when the creditor%s acceptance of the money consigned is conditional and with

reservations, he is not deemed to have waived the claims he reserved against his de!tor. Thus,

when the amount consigned does not cover the entire o!ligation, the creditor may accept it,

reserving his right to the !alance (Tolentino, Civil Code of the hil., ol. $, 1/03 5d., p. 310, citing  3

lerena 23. The same factual milieu o!tains here !ecause the respondent creditor accepted with

reservation the amount consigned in court !y the petitioner-de!tor. Therefore, the creditor is not

!arred from raising his other claims, as he did in his answer with special defenses and counterclaim

against the petitioner-de!tor.

 &s respondent-creditor%s acceptance of the amount consigned was with reservations, it did not

completely e6tinguish the entire inde!tedness of the petitioner-de!tor. $t is apposite to note here that

consignation is completed at the time the creditor accepts the same without objections, or, if he

o!jects, at the time the court declares that it has !een validly made in accordance with law.

(Tolentino, Civil Code of the hil., ol. $, 1/03 5d., p. 31#.

7ince the lower court in this case declared on 7eptem!er 2, 1/ that there was a validconsignation !y the petitioner, the latter cannot tena!ly argue that he is still the owner of the amount

consigned and that he can still withdraw it.

The consignation has retroactive effect. The payment is deemed to have !een made at the time of

the deposit of the money in court, or when it was placed at the disposal of the judicial

authority, supra. $n this case, payment is considered made on 8uly 20, 1/ when petitioner

consigned and deposited with the respondent court the sum of 113,0#9.

[G.R. No. 156474. August 16, 2005]

PESANE ANIMAS MONGAO, joine !" #e$ #us!%n &EN'(R MONGAO,

)etitione$s, *s. PR+E PROPER-IES ORPORA-ION, $es)onent.

 The records reveal that respondent corporation did not fle any ormal complaint or

consignation but merely deposited the check with the Clerk o Court. A o$/%

o/)%int /ust !e o//ene it# t#e t$i% ou$t to )$o*ie t#e )$o)e$

*enue o$ t#e ete$/in%tion i t#e$e is % *%i tene$ o )%"/ent. Strictly

speaking, without the institution o an action or tender o payment and

7/23/2019 Consignation Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/consignation-cases 3/3

consignation, the trial court cannot rule on whether or not respondent was ustifed

in not e!ecting payment solely to petitioner "ongao.

 Tentative answer# $e can consign but we have to make sure that the compulsory

counterclaim they will fle is not within the urisdiction o the court we fled the case

in.

%n &imkako v. Teodoro, the action was a Complaint to accept payment o a loan.