MAS, Bernardyne Mae D.

2MKT01
Exercise No. 1

1. A. No, Mang Andoy is incorrect invoking both grounds of “loss of the thing
due” which results in his “impossibility of performance” firstly because the
requisites to extinguish an obligation due to loss of the thing is that the
thing to be delivered must be a specific or determinate thing, the thing due
is not a determinate thing, the ₱10,000 to be delivered can still be paid
from other sources. Also the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk by the debtor. Lastly, in this case impossibility cannot be
used as an excuse for non-compliance simply because the obligation
became extremely difficult and not impossible.

B. Yes, the lessor of Mang Andoy can refuse to accept the payment from
President Duterte because a creditor should not be compelled to accept
any payment from third person who is not originally included or authorized
to pay in their contract. A third person who insists of paying because of
generosity and I presume does not intend the payment to be reimbursed is
deemed to be a donation which requires the debtor’s consent first to be
valid. A creditor has the right to insist on the liability of the debtor. So, the
lessor can refuse to accept the payment of President Duterte.
Soledad Soco v Hon. Francis Militante and Regino Francisco
GR No. L-58961, June 28, 1983
FACTS:
a. Soco and Francisco entered into a contract of lease whereby Soco leased
her commercial building and lot to Francisco for a monthly rental of
P800.00 for a period of 10 years renewable for another 10 years at the
option of the lessee.
b. Francisco sent a letter to Soco due to noticing that the latter has not been
sending her collector for the payment of rentals and at times there were
payments made but no receipts were issued. Until then, Francisco has been
paying his rentals by checks issued by the Commercial Bank and Trust
Company.
c. Soco learned that Francisco sub-leased a portion of the building to NACIDA,
at a monthly rental of more than P3,000- higher than what Francisco has
been paying. Soco look for ways and means to terminate the contract.
d. An alleged non-payment of rental of the leased premises which began on
May, 1977 led Soco, through her lawyer sent a letter to Francisco serving
notice to the latter “to vacate the premises leased”.
e. Francisco answered through his lawyer that all payments of rental due
were in fact paid by Commercial Bank and Trust Company through the Clerk
of Court of the City Court of Cebu. Despite this explanation, Soco filed this
instant case of Illegal Detainer.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the consignation of payment of the rentals was valid.
RULING: No valid consignation. The consignation may be effective if the
debtor first comply with the requisites prescribed by law. Failure in any of
the requisites is enough ground to render consignation ineffective.
a. Lessee failed to prove tender of payment of the monthly rentals to the
lessor.
b. Lessee failed to prove the first notice to the lessor prior to consignation-
the lessee has the obligation to make and tender the check to the lessor.
c. Lessee failed to prove second notice, that is, after consignation has been
made, to the lessor
d. Lessee failed to prove the actual deposit or consignation of the monthly
rentals.