Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Dalton v. FGR Realty

    Uploaded by

    Vener Margallo
    1) Soledad Dalton and others leased portions of land owned by Flora Dayrit. Dayrit then sold the property to FGR Realty. Dayrit and FGR stopped accepting rental payments to terminate the lease agreements. 2) Dalton and others consigned the rental payments with the court but failed to notify Dayrit and FGR. Dayrit and FGR withdrew the payments while reserving the right to question the consignation's validity. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the consignation was void because Dalton and others did not strictly comply with the notice requirements, as they did not announce the consignation to Dayrit and FGR.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dalton v. FGR Realty

    Uploaded by

    Vener Margallo
    56 views1 page
    1) Soledad Dalton and others leased portions of land owned by Flora Dayrit. Dayrit then sold the property to FGR Realty. Dayrit and FGR stopped accepting rental payments to terminate the lease agreements. 2) Dalton and others consigned the rental payments with the court but failed to notify Dayrit and FGR. Dayrit and FGR withdrew the payments while reserving the right to question the consignation's validity. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the consignation was void because Dalton and others did not strictly comply with the notice requirements, as they did not announce the consignation to Dayrit and FGR.

    Original Title

    93. Dalton v. FGR Realty

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Soledad Dalton and others leased portions of land owned by Flora Dayrit. Dayrit then sold the property to FGR Realty. Dayrit and FGR stopped accepting rental payments to terminate the lease agreements. 2) Dalton and others consigned the rental payments with the court but failed to notify Dayrit and FGR. Dayrit and FGR withdrew the payments while reserving the right to question the consignation's validity. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the consignation was void because Dalton and others did not strictly comply with the notice requirements, as they did not announce the consignation to Dayrit and FGR.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views1 page

    Dalton v. FGR Realty

    Uploaded by

    Vener Margallo
    1) Soledad Dalton and others leased portions of land owned by Flora Dayrit. Dayrit then sold the property to FGR Realty. Dayrit and FGR stopped accepting rental payments to terminate the lease agreements. 2) Dalton and others consigned the rental payments with the court but failed to notify Dayrit and FGR. Dayrit and FGR withdrew the payments while reserving the right to question the consignation's validity. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the consignation was void because Dalton and others did not strictly comply with the notice requirements, as they did not announce the consignation to Dayrit and FGR.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Soledad Dalton v.

    FGR Realty
    GR No. 172577, 2011-01-19
    January 19, 2011
    FACTS:
    Flora R. Dayrit (Dayrit) owned a... parcel of land... in Cebu City.
    Petitioner Soledad Dalton (Dalton), Clemente Sasam, Romulo Villalonga, Miguela Villarente, Aniceta Fuentes,
    Perla Pormento, Bonifacio Cabajar,... Carmencita Yuson, Angel Ponce, Pedro Regudo, Pedro Quebedo, Mary
    Cabanlit, Marciana Encabo and Dolores Lim (Sasam, et al.) leased portions of the property.
    Dayrit sold the property to respondent FGR Realty and Development Corporation
    Dayrit and FGR stopped accepting rental payments because they wanted to terminate the lease agreements
    with Dalton and Sasam, et al.
    Dalton and Sasam, et al. consigned the rental payments with the RTC.
    They failed to notify Dayrit and FGR about the consignation.
    Dayrit and FGR withdrew the rental payments. In their motions, Dayrit and FGR reserved the right to question
    the validity of the consignation.
    Dayrit, FGR and Sasam, et al. entered into compromise agreements... they agreed to abandon all claims
    against each other. Dalton did not enter into a compromise... agreement with Dayrit and FGR.
    ISSUES:
    the consignation was void
    RULING:
    First, in withdrawing the amounts consigned, Dayrit and FGR expressly reserved the right to question the
    validity of the consignation.
    Second, compliance with the requisites of a valid consignation is mandatory. Failure to comply strictly with any
    of the requisites will render the consignation void.
    Substantial compliance is not enough.
    Articles 1257 and 1258 of the Civil Code state, respectively:
    Art. 1257. In order that the consignation of the thing due may release the obligor, 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.
    Art. 1258. Consignation shall be made by depositing the things due at the disposal of judicial authority, before
    whom the tender of payment shall be proved, in a proper case, and the announcement of the consignation in
    other cases.
    The consignation having been made, the interested parties shall also be notified thereof.
    Principles:
    Art. 1257. In order that the consignation of the thing due may release the obligor, it must first be announced to
    the persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation.
    Art. 1258. Consignation shall be made by depositing the things due at the disposal of judicial authority, before
    whom the tender of payment shall be proved, in a proper case, and the announcement of the consignation in
    other cases.

    You might also like