Lessons Applicable: Introduction to Negotiable Instruments (Negotiable Instruments Law)
FACTS:
- July 7, 1971: A contract over the land was executed between the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos (bishop) as vendor and the through its then president, Mr. Carlos F. Robes, as vendee, stipulating for a downpayment of P23,930 and the balance of P100,000 plus 12% interest per annum to be paid within 4 years from execution of the contract.
- The contract likewise provides for cancellation, forfeiture of previous payments, and reconveyance of the land in case of failure to pay within the period
- March 12, 1973: private respondent, through its new president, Atty. Adalia Francisco, addressed a letter 6 to Father Vasquez, parish priest of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, requesting to be furnished with a copy of the subject contract and the supporting documents
- July 17, 1975: after the expiration of the stipulated period for payment, Atty. Francisco wrote the formal request that her company be allowed to pay the principal amount of P100,000 in 3 equal installments of 6 months each with the 1st installment and the accrued interest of P24,000 to be paid immediately upon approval
- July 29, 1975: Bishop through its counsel, Atty. Carmelo Fernandez, formally denied the request but granted a grace period of 5 days from the receipt of the denial to pay the total balance of P124,000
- August 4, 1975: private respondent, through its president, Atty. Francisco, wrote the counsel of the petitioner requesting an extension of 30 days from to fully settle its account. - denied
- RTC: favored Bishop declaring the down payment as forfeited
ISSUE: W/N there is tender of payment by issuance of a certified check
HELD: NO. RTC reinstated.
- Tender of payment involves a positive and unconditional act by the obligor of offering legal tender currency as payment to the obligee for the former’s obligation and demanding that the latter accept the same.
- tender of payment cannot be presumed by a mere inference from surrounding circumstances
- sheer proof of sufficient available funds to meet more than the total obligation within the grace period - NOT sufficient
- On the contrary, the respondent court finds itself remiss in overlooking or taking lightly the more important findings of fact made by the trial court which are entitled to great weight on appeal and should be accorded full consideration and respect and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons
- certified personal check which is not legal tender nor the currency stipulated, and therefore, can not constitute valid tender of payment
- Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment
