CETUS DEVELOPMENT INC VS.

CA

Article 1169 of the Civil Code

FACTS:

Private respondents were the lessees of the premises originally owned by Susana Realty. The
payments of the rentals were paid by them to a collector of the Susana Realty who went the premises
monthly. Susana Realty, however, sold the property to petitioner Cetus Development, Inc. The private
respondents then continued to pay their monthly rentals to a collector sent by the petitioner. In
succeeding months, for three months, the private respondents failed to pay their rentals because no
collector came. They then contacted the petitioner over the telephone as to where they should pay their
rentals. The petitioner then told them that they would send a collector to collect the rentals. Private
respondents waited but no collector came. Petitioner then sent a letter to each of the private
respondents demanding that they vacate the subject premises and to pay their arrearages within 15
days from the receipt thereof. With this, private respondents immediately upon the receipt of such
demand, tendered their payments which were accepted by the petitioner with the condition that the
acceptance was without prejudice to the filing of ejectment suit. For failure of the private respondents
to vacate the premises as demanded, petitioner filed an ejectment suit against them.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a delay of payment by the private respondents to the petitioner
considering that upon receipt of the demand letter, they immediately tendered their payments.

HELD:

No. There was no failure yet on the part of the private respondents to pay rents for three
consecutive months. It has been duly established that it has been customary for private respondents to
pay their rentals through a collector sent by the lessor.

Article 1169 of the Civil Code provides that those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in
delay from the time the oblige judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their
obligation.

The moment the petitioner extrajudicially demand the payment of the rentals, private
respondents immediately answered their obligation by paying their arrearages of rentals to the
petitioner.