Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This is in connection with my research on the rule on consignation and the effect of its
withdrawal.
As per records, the movants consigned their payments with this Office extrajudicially.
Under the law and jurisprudence, for consignation to take effect the following requisites
must concur:
There is no showing from the records that the movants notified creditor Corazon Tabulao
of their intention to consign their payments with this Court. Their Letters dated Sept. 5, 2012;
Dec. 10, 2012; March 13, 2013; June 14, 2013; October 9, 2013; and February 3, 2014; show
nothing of such notice unto the said creditor.
It can also be gleaned from the records that Orders of the said Letters by Hon. James
Clinton R.C. Nuevo were not received by the creditor, hence, there was no notice given to the
creditor after the consignation was made.
In recent case of Soledad Dalton vs. FGR Relaty and Development, et. Al, G.R. No.
172577, January 19, 2011, the Supreme Court held that failure of the consignor to notify all
persons interested in the consignation renders the latter ineffectual.
In Soco vs. Militante, et al., G.R. NO. L-58961, June 28, 1983, the Court held that:
Therefore, the consignations done by the movants are ineffectual and can not, in anyway,
extinguish the liabilities of the movants if withdrawn by the latter.