The giving of notice to the person interested in the performance of the obligation is

mandatory.

Dalton Vs. FGR Realty & Development Corp.

G.R. No. 172577; January 19, 2011
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

FACTS:
This is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Plaintiffs-Appellant, Dalton, and Samsam et.al leased portions of the property from Flora Dayrit
who owns 1, 811-square meters of land in Cebu City. Because Dayrit sold the property to
Defendant-Appellee, FGR stopped accepting rental payments to terminate the lease contract
of Dalton and Samsam et.al.

The Plaintiffs then consigned the rental payments with the RTC. However, they failed to notify
the defendant-appellees of her intention to consign the amount due to them as rentals. In
motion, Dayrit and FGR reserved the right to question the validity of the consignation.

The RTC dismissed the 11 September 1985 complaint and ordered Dalton to vacate the
property. Thus, Dalton appealed to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the consignation made by the Petitioner valid?

RULING:
No. The Court of Appeals upheld that the facts and evidence, in this case, have no virtue for
overturning the decision of the lower court dismissing Dalton’s complaint as the CA find no valid
consignation made by the Plaintiff-Appellant. As directly given under Article 1257 of the Civil
Code, consignation of the thing due may release the obligator, it must first be announced to
the persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation. The consignation shall be ineffectual if
it is not made strictly in consonance with the provisions which regulate payment.

In the case of Dalton and FGR, it is distinct that the Plaintiffs failed to meet prevailing rules 3 and
5 of effectual consignation.