ESGUERRA VS VILLANUEVA

G.R. No. L-23191 December 19, 1967

Petitioners-appellants: GERONIMO G. ESGUERRA and CRISTINA G. ESGUERRA, vs.

Respondents-appellees: THE HON. FELIPE M. VILLANUEVA, Municipal Judge of Dagupan City,

THE PROVINCE SHERIFF OF PANGASINAN, ISIDRO DE GUZMAN and SEGUNDA DE GUZMAN

FACTS:

1. Spouses Esguerra and Isidro de Guzman entered into a contract whereby Esguerra leased to
De Guzman a portion of the building, belonging to the Esguerra, for a term of 10 years at a
monthly rental of P300.00, up to July 11, 1962, and P 400.00 thereafter, payable in advance
within the first 10 days of each month.

2. De Guzman failed to pay the rental, and his mother, Segunda De Guzman, executed a
promissory note.

3. None of the aforementioned payments having been made when due, the Esguerras
commenced an action against Mrs. De Guzman for the collection of the said money.

4. The parties reached a compromised agreement, which was approved by Judge Villanueva

*Judge Villanueva acknowledged that De Guzman delivered to Esguerra P800 and P1,460, and
that the receipt of said sums by the Esguerras constituted full satisfaction of the
aforementioned judgment by compromise.

5. Respondents claim that the “receipt” of said sums of P800 and P1,460 by the Esguerras
constituted “acceptance” of the incomplete and irregular performance of the respondent’s
obligation.

ISSUE:

WON the receipt of the sums of money constitutes acceptance of the irregular performance.
(ARTICLE 1235)

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Esguerra. The obligation, in this case, is deemed not
extinguished. The verb “accept” as used in Art 1235 means to take as “satisfactory or sufficient”,
or “to give assent to”, or “to agree or accede” to an incomplete performance. In the case at bar,
the Esguerras had neither acceded or assented to said payment, nor taken the same as
satisfactory or sufficient compliance with the rendered. The day immediately following that of
the first payment of P800, the Esguerras asked Judge Villanueva to issue the corresponding
writes of execution in the 2 cases. Thus, the Esguerras patently manifested their dissatisfaction
with- which necessarily implied an objection or protest to- said partial payment. The law does
not require the protest or objection of the creditor to be made in a particular manner or at a
particular time. In the case at bar, the Esguerras had performed said acts within such time.