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.
Whether the de Guzmans have complied with the obligation fully.
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 both installmnents so the Esguerrascommenced a civil case against Mrs. De Guzman.
They alsoinstituted a civil case against de Guzman and writs of attachmentwere issued. Thereafter, the parties reached a compromiseagreement wherein defendants admit their indebtedness worthP2,260 . This sum was not paid to the Esguerras on or beforeNovember 26 1962 as stipulated in the compromise agreement. DeGuzman however alleges that he had delivered to Esguerrathrough his counsel P800 on December 1962 and P1460 onJanuary 5 1963 so he filed a motion for the release of theproperties seized. De Guzman maintain and the lower court heldthat the receipt of said sums P800 and P1400 by the Esguerrasconstituted “acceptance” of the incomplete and irregularperformance of their obligation, having been made without anyprotest or objection.
ISSUE: WON Esguerra’s issuance of receipt constituted acceptanceso as to release de Guzman from completing his obligation (no) HELD: decision of lower court was reversed
RATIO: The day immediately following the first payment of P800,the Esguerras asked Judge Villanueva to issue the correspondingwrits of execution in the 2 cases. Thus, the Esguerras patentlymanifested their dissatisfaction with – which necessarily implied anobjection or protest to- said partial payment *the law does not require the protest or objection of the creditor tobe made in a particular manner or at a particular time. So long asthe acts of the creditor at the time of the incomplete or irregularpayment by the debtor, or within a reasonable time thereafter,evince that the former is not satisfied with or agreeable to saidpayment or performance, the obligation shall not be deemed fullyextinguished