11/4/2019 G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v.

INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. : NO…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > November 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 72110 November
16, 1990 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 72110. November 16, 1990.]

ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC., Petitioner, v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE

COURT, and ROBES-FRANCISCO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

Rodrigo Law Office for Petitioner.

Antonio P. Barredo and Napoleon M. Malinas for Private Respondent.

SYLLABUS

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
1. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; TENDER OF PAYMENT; CANNOT BE PRESUMED BY MERE INFERENCE FROM
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. — We agree with the petitioner that a finding that the private
respondent had sufficient available funds on or before the grace period for the payment of its obligation
does not constitute proof of tender of payment by the latter for its obligation within the said period.
Tender of payment involves a positive and unconditional act by the obligor of offering legal tender
currency as payment to the obligee for the former’s obligation and demanding that the latter accept the
same. Thus, tender of payment cannot be presumed by a mere inference from surrounding
circumstances. At most, sufficiency of available funds is only affirmative of the capacity or ability of the
obligor to fulfill his part of the bargain. But whether or not the obligor avails himself of such funds to
settle his outstanding account remains to be proven by independent and credible evidence. Tender of
payment presupposes not only that the obligor is able, ready, and willing, but more so, in the act of
performing his obligation. Ab posse ad actu non vale illatio. "A proof that an act could have been done is
no proof that it was actually done." The respondent court was therefore in error to have concluded from
the sheer proof of sufficient available funds on the part of the private respondent to meet more than the
total obligation within the grace period, the alleged truth of tender of payment. The same is a classic
case of non-sequitur.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT VALIDLY CONSTITUTED BY PAYMENT OF A CERTIFIED PERSONAL CHECK. — With
regard to the third issue, granting arguendo that we would rule affirmatively on the two preceding issues,
the case of the private respondent still can not succeed in view of the fact that the latter used a certified
personal check which is not legal tender nor the currency stipulated, and therefore, can not constitute
valid tender of payment. The first paragraph of Art. 1249 of the Civil Code provides that "the payment of
debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency,
then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. The Court en banc in the recent case of
Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals, (Promulgated on January 30, 1990) G.R. No. L-49188, stated
thus: Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such
an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment (citing Sec. 189, Act 2031 on Negs. Insts.; Art.
1249, Civil Code; Bryan London Co. v. American Bank, 7 Phil. 255; Tan Sunco v. Santos, 9 Phil. 44; 21
R.C.L. 60, 61). A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer of
a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee
or creditor. Hence, where the tender of payment by the private respondent was not valid for failure to
comply with the requisite payment in legal tender or currency stipulated within the grace period and as
ChanRobles Intellectual Property such, was validly refused receipt by the petitioner, the subsequent consignation did not operate to
Division discharge the former from its obligation to the latter.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990novemberdecisions.php?id=2118 1/9
11/4/2019 G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. : NO…
November-1990 Jurisprudence              
  
G.R. No. 64398 November 6, 1990 - JOSE CHING
SUI YONG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990 - NATIVIDAD V.
ANDAMO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 86953 November 6, 1990 - MARINE
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. v. RAINERIO O. REYES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 68282 November 8, 1990 - RAQUEL
CHAVEZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 75450 November 8, 1990 - OSMUNDO
MEDINA, ET AL. v. MACARIO A. ASISTIO, JR.
G.R. No. 88831 November 8, 1990 - MATEO CAASI
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92103 November 8, 1990 - VIOLETA T.
TEOLOGO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 71163-65 November 9, 1990 - CARLITO
P. BONDOC v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 76487 November 9, 1990 - JOHN Z. SYCIP
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 80916 November 9, 1990 - C.T. TORRES
ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ROMEO J. HIBIONADA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 83897 November 9, 1990 - ESTEBAN B.
UY, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 85740 November 9, 1990 - MANUEL P.
PARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92024 November 9, 1990 - ENRIQUE T.
GARCIA v. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92349 November 9, 1990 - MARIA LUISA
ESTOESTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92481 November 9, 1990 - MANUEL G.
VIRAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 94291 November 9, 1990 - DAGUPAN BUS
COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 94339 November 9, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO TALINGDAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 59957 November 12, 1990 - CENTRAL
BANK OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 72603 November 12, 1990 - GALICANO
CALAPATIA, JR. v. HACIENDA BENITO, INC., ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 87760-61 November 12, 1990 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO TENEBRO
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990novemberdecisions.php?id=2118
3. ID.; ID.; OBLIGATIONS ARISING THEREFROM HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW BETWEEN THE
CONTRACTING PARTIES. — Art. 1159 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that "obligations
arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with
in good faith." And unless the stipulations in said contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order, or public policy, the same are binding as between the parties. (Article 1409, Civil Code, par.
1). What the private respondent should have done if it was indeed desirous of complying with its
obligations would have been to pay the petitioner within the grace period and obtain a receipt of such
payment duly issued by the latter. Thereafter, or, allowing a reasonable time, the private respondent
could have demanded from the petitioner the execution of the necessary documents. In case the
petitioner refused, the private respondent could have had always resorted to judicial action for the
legitimate enforcement of its right. For the failure of the private respondent to undertake this more
judicious course of action, it alone shall suffer the consequences.
4. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT AS A RULE, SHOULD BE ACCORDED
FULL CONSIDERATION AND RESPECT. — On the contrary, the respondent court finds itself remiss in
overlooking or taking lightly the more important findings of fact made by the trial court which we have
earlier mentioned and which as a rule, are entitled to great weight on appeal and should be accorded full
consideration and respect and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons. (Natividad
del Rosario Vda. de Alberto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 29759, May 18, 1989; Matabuena v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. 76542, May 5, 1989).
5. ID.; SUPREME COURT; INSTANCES WHEN THE COURT HAS TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE. — While the
Court is not a trier of facts, yet, when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are at variance with
those of the trial court, (Robleza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 80364, June 28, 1989) or when the inference
of the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, (Reynolds Philippine Corporation
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 38187, January 17, 1987) the Court has to review the evidence in order to
arrive at the correct findings based on the record.
DECISION
SARMIENTO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks the reversal and setting aside of the decision 1 of
the Court of Appeals, 2 the dispositive portion of which reads: chanrobles law library : red
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and another one entered for
the plaintiff ordering the defendant-appellee Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. to accept the balance
of P124,000.00 being paid by plaintiff-appellant and thereafter to execute in favor of Robes-Francisco
Realty Corporation a registerable Deed of Absolute Sale over 20,655 square meters portion of that parcel
of land situated in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan described in OCT No. 575 (now Transfer Certificates of
Title Nos. T-169493, 169494,169495 and 169496) of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. In case of refusal
of the defendant to execute the Deed of Final Sale, the clerk of court is directed to execute the said
document. Without pronouncement as to damages and attorney’s fees. Costs against the defendant-
appellee. 3
The case at bar arose from a complaint filed by the private respondent, then plaintiff, against the
petitioner, then defendant, in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Bulacan, at Sta.
Maria, Bulacan, 4 for specific performance with damages, based on a contract 5 executed on July 7,
1971.
The property subject matter of the contract consists of a 20,655 sq.m.-portion, out of the 30,655 sq.m.
total area, of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 575 of the Province of Bulacan,
issued and registered in the name of the petitioner which it sold to the private respondent for and in
consideration of P123,930.00. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The crux of the instant controversy lies in the compliance or non-compliance by the private respondent
with the provision for payment to the petitioner of the principal balance of P100,000.00 and the accrued
interest of P24,000.00 within the grace period.
A chronological narration of the antecedent facts is as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On July 7, 1971, the subject contract over the land in question was executed between the petitioner as
vendor and the private respondent through its then president, Mr. Carlos F. Robes, as vendee, stipulating
for a downpayment of P23,930.00 and the balance of P100,000.00 plus 12% interest per annum to be
paid within four (4) years from execution of the contract, that is, on or before July 7, 1975. The contract
likewise provides for cancellation, forfeiture of previous payments, and reconveyance of the land in
question in case the private respondent would fail to complete payment within the said period.
On March 12, 1973, the private respondent, through its new president, Atty. Adalia Francisco, addressed
a letter 6 to Father Vasquez, parish priest of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, requesting to be furnished
with a copy of the subject contract and the supporting documents.
On July 17, 1975, admittedly after the expiration of the stipulated period for payment, the same Atty.
Francisco wrote the petitioner a formal request 7 that her company be allowed to pay the principal
amount of P100,000.00 in three (3) equal installments of six (6) months each with the first installment
and the accrued interest of P24,000.00 to be paid immediately upon approval of the said request.
On July 29, 1975, the petitioner, through its counsel, Atty. Carmelo Fernandez, formally denied the said
request of the private respondent, but granted the latter a grace period of five (5) days from the receipt
of the denial 8 to pay the total balance of P124,000.00, otherwise, the provisions of the contract
regarding cancellation, forfeiture, and reconveyance would be implemented.
On August 4, 1975, the private respondent, through its president, Atty. Francisco, wrote 9 the counsel of
the petitioner requesting an extension of 30 days from said date to fully settle its account. The counsel
for the petitioner, Atty. Fernandez, received the said letter on the same day. Upon consultation with the
petitioner in Malolos, Bulacan, Atty. Fernandez, as instructed, wrote the private respondent a letter 10
dated August 7, 1975 informing the latter of the denial of the request for an extension of the grace
period.
Consequently, Atty. Francisco, the private respondent’s president, wrote a letter 11 dated August 22,
1975, directly addressed to the petitioner, protesting the alleged refusal of the latter to accept tender of
payment purportedly made by the former on August 5, 1975, the last day of the grace period. In the
same letter of August 22, 1975, received on the following day by the petitioner, the private respondent
demanded the execution of a deed of absolute sale over the land in question and after which it would pay
its account in full, otherwise, judicial action would be resorted to. chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
On August 27, 1975, the petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Fernandez, wrote a reply 12 to the private
respondent stating the refusal of his client to execute the deed of absolute sale due to its (private
respondent’s) failure to pay its full obligation. Moreover, the petitioner denied that the private respondent
had made any tender of payment whatsoever within the grace period. In view of this alleged breach of
2/9
11/4/2019 G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. : NO…
G.R. No. 90653 November 12, 1990 - POLICARPIO
CAPULE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 74048 November 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CRUZ
G.R. No. 79673 November 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. WARLITO FABRO
G.R. No. 85976 November 15, 1990 - JOSE CESAR
D. SIMPAO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 48646 November 16, 1990 - STAR
FORWARDERS, INC. v. MIGUEL R. NAVARRO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN
CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 76113 November 16, 1990 - D.P. LUB OIL
MARKETING CENTER, INC. v. RAUL NICOLAS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 84873 November 16, 1990 - ERLE PENDON
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 87636 November 19, 1990 - NEPTALI A.
GONZALES, ET AL. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET
AL.
G.R. No. 66541 November 20, 1990 - GUARDEX
ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 80201 November 20, 1990 - ANTONIO
GARCIA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 80406 November 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. BENITO I. ESPIRITU, ET AL.
G.R. No. 47210 November 21, 1990 - LECAROZ
TRANSIT, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.
G.R. No. 78714 November 21, 1990 - F. DAVID
ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND
AMERICA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 86500 November 21, 1990 - LEONARDO
SALAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 89418-19 November 21, 1990 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ASPILI, ET AL.
G.R. No. 90591 November 21, 1990 - AMOR D.
DELOSO v. MANUEL C. DOMINGO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 90669 November 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. GERRY V. MAÑAGO
G.R. No. 92358 November 21, 1990 - OSCAR M.
ORBOS, ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG, ET AL.
G.R. No. 94173 November 21, 1990 - DANIEL L.
BOCOBO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 49664-67 November 22, 1990 -
PANTRANCO SOUTH EXPRESS, INC. v. BOARD OF
TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 79119 November 22, 1990 - VICTORINO
E. DAY v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ZAMBOANGA
CITY, BRANCH XIII, ET AL.
G.R. No. 82978 November 22, 1990 - MANILA
REMNANT CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 93212 November 22, 1990 - DIOSDADO
DE VERA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 53967 November 26, 1990 - ALFREDO
VELASCO, ET AL. v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.
G.R. No. 75369 November 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO J. ILIGAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 83385 November 26, 1990 - GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. SANDIGANBAYAN,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 86791 November 26, 1990 - ZENAIDA
BOLOR CHANG v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 58876 November 27, 1990 - ANICETO
RAMOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 74223 November 27, 1990 - JUNE PRILL
BRETT, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 84572-73 November 27, 1990 - ALFONSO
O. AJEJANDRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 90314 November 27, 1990 - LOIDA Q.
SHAUF, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
A.C. No. 2115 November 27, 1990 - FELICIDAD
BARIÑAN TAN v. GALILEO J. TROCIO
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990novemberdecisions.php?id=2118
contract, the petitioner cancelled the contract and considered all previous payments forfeited and the
land as ipso facto reconveyed.
From a perusal of the foregoing facts, we find that both the contending parties have conflicting versions
on the main question of tender of payment.
The trial court, in its ratiocination, preferred not to give credence to the evidence presented by the
private Respondent. According to the trial court: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
. . . What made Atty. Francisco suddenly decide to pay plaintiff’s obligation on August 5, 1975, go to
defendant’s office at Malolos, and there tender her payment, when her request of August 4, 1975 had not
yet been acted upon until August 7, 1975? If Atty. Francisco had decided to pay the obligation and had
available funds for the purpose on August 5, 1975, then there would have been no need for her to write
defendant on August 4, 1975 to request an extension of time. Indeed, Atty. Francisco’s claim that she
made a tender of payment on August 5, 1975 — such alleged act, considered in relation to the
circumstances both antecedent and subsequent thereto, being not in accord with the normal pattern of
human conduct — is not worthy of credence. 13
The trial court likewise noted the inconsistency in the testimony of Atty. Francisco, president of the
private respondent, who earlier testified that a certain Mila Policarpio accompanied her on August 5, 1975
to the office of the petitioner. Another person, however, named Aurora Oracion, was presented to testify
as the secretary-companion of Atty. Francisco on that same occasion.
Furthermore, the trial court considered as fatal the failure of Atty. Francisco to present in court the
certified personal check allegedly tendered as payment or, at least, its xerox copy, or even bank records
thereof. Finally, the trial court found that the private respondent had insufficient funds available to fulfill
the entire obligation considering that the latter, through its president, Atty. Francisco, only had a savings
account deposit of P64,840.00, and although the latter had a money-market placement of P300,000.00,
the same was to mature only after the expiration of the 5-day grace period.
Based on the above considerations, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner, the
dispositive portion of which reads: chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
WHEREFORE, finding plaintiff to have failed to make out its case, the court hereby declares the subject
contract cancelled and plaintiff’s downpayment of P23,930.00 forfeited in favor of defendant, and hereby
dismisses the complaint; and on the counterclaim, the Court orders plaintiff to pay defendant.
(1) Attorney’s fees of P10,000.00;
(2) Litigation expenses of P2,000.00; and
(3) Judicial costs.
SO ORDERED. 14
Not satisfied with the said decision, the private respondent appealed to the respondent Intermediate
Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) assigning as reversible errors, among others, the findings of the
trial court that the available funds of the private respondent were insufficient and that the latter did not
effect a valid tender of payment and consignation.
The respondent court, in reversing the decision of the trial court, essentially relies on the following
findings:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
. . . We are convinced from the testimony of Atty. Adalia Francisco and her witnesses that in behalf of the
plaintiff-appellant they have a total available sum of P364,840.00 at her and at the plaintiff’s disposal on
or before August 4, 1975 to answer for the obligation of the plaintiff-appellant. It was not correct for the
trial court to conclude that the plaintiff-appellant had only about P64,840.00 in savings deposit on or
before August 5, 1975, a sum not enough to pay the outstanding account of P124,000.00. The plaintiff-
appellant, through Atty. Francisco proved and the trial court even acknowledged that Atty. Adalia
Francisco had about P300,000.00 in money market placement. The error of the trial court has in
concluding that the money market placement of P300,000.00 was out of reach of Atty. Francisco. But as
testified to by Mr. Catalino Estrella, a representative of the Insular Bank of Asia and America, Atty.
Francisco could withdraw anytime her money market placement and place it at her disposal, thus proving
her financial capability of meeting more than the whole of P124,000.00 then due per contract. This
situation, We believe, proves the truth that Atty. Francisco apprehensive that her request for a 30-day
grace period would be denied, she tendered payment on August 4, 1975 which offer defendant through
its representative and counsel refused to receive. . .15 (Emphasis supplied)
In other words, the respondent court, finding that the private respondent had sufficient available funds,
ipso facto concluded that the latter had tendered payment. Is such conclusion warranted by the facts
proven? The petitioner submits that it is not. cralawnad
Hence, this petition. 16
The petitioner presents the following issues for resolution: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
x x x
A. Is a finding that private respondent had sufficient available funds on or before the grace period for the
payment of its obligation proof that it (private respondent) did tender of (sic) payment for its said
obligation within said period?
x x x
B. Is it the legal obligation of the petitioner (as vendor) to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of the
private respondent (as vendee) before the latter has actually paid the complete consideration of the sale
— where the contract between and executed by the parties stipulates —
"That upon complete payment of the agreed consideration by the herein VENDEE, the VENDOR shall
cause the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the VENDEE." cralaw virtua1aw library
x x x.
C. Is an offer of a check a valid tender of payment of an obligation under a contract which stipulates that
the consideration of the sale is in Philippine Currency? 17
We find the petition impressed with merit.
With respect to the first issue, we agree with the petitioner that a finding that the private respondent had
sufficient available funds on or before the grace period for the payment of its obligation does not
constitute proof of tender of payment by the latter for its obligation within the said period. Tender of
3/9
11/4/2019 G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. : NO…
G.R. Nos. 91592-93 November 28, 1990 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN JOLIPAS
G.R. No. 72781 November 29, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO D. VILORIA, JR.
G.R. No. 64398 November 6, 1990 - JOSE CHING
SUI YONG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990 - NATIVIDAD V.
ANDAMO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 86953 November 6, 1990 - MARINE
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. v. RAINERIO O. REYES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 68282 November 8, 1990 - RAQUEL
CHAVEZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 75450 November 8, 1990 - OSMUNDO
MEDINA, ET AL. v. MACARIO A. ASISTIO, JR.
G.R. No. 88831 November 8, 1990 - MATEO CAASI
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92103 November 8, 1990 - VIOLETA T.
TEOLOGO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 71163-65 November 9, 1990 - CARLITO
P. BONDOC v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 76487 November 9, 1990 - JOHN Z. SYCIP
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 80916 November 9, 1990 - C.T. TORRES
ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ROMEO J. HIBIONADA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 83897 November 9, 1990 - ESTEBAN B.
UY, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 85740 November 9, 1990 - MANUEL P.
PARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92024 November 9, 1990 - ENRIQUE T.
GARCIA v. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92349 November 9, 1990 - MARIA LUISA
ESTOESTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 92481 November 9, 1990 - MANUEL G.
VIRAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 94291 November 9, 1990 - DAGUPAN BUS
COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 94339 November 9, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO TALINGDAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 59957 November 12, 1990 - CENTRAL
BANK OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 72603 November 12, 1990 - GALICANO
CALAPATIA, JR. v. HACIENDA BENITO, INC., ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 87760-61 November 12, 1990 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO TENEBRO
G.R. No. 90653 November 12, 1990 - POLICARPIO
CAPULE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 74048 November 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CRUZ
G.R. No. 79673 November 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. WARLITO FABRO
G.R. No. 85976 November 15, 1990 - JOSE CESAR
D. SIMPAO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 48646 November 16, 1990 - STAR
FORWARDERS, INC. v. MIGUEL R. NAVARRO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN
CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.
G.R. No. 76113 November 16, 1990 - D.P. LUB OIL
MARKETING CENTER, INC. v. RAUL NICOLAS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 84873 November 16, 1990 - ERLE PENDON
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 87636 November 19, 1990 - NEPTALI A.
GONZALES, ET AL. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET
AL.
G.R. No. 66541 November 20, 1990 - GUARDEX
ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 80201 November 20, 1990 - ANTONIO
GARCIA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 80406 November 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. BENITO I. ESPIRITU, ET AL.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990novemberdecisions.php?id=2118
payment involves a positive and unconditional act by the obligor of offering legal tender currency as
payment to the obligee for the former’s obligation and demanding that the latter accept the same. Thus,
tender of payment cannot be presumed by a mere inference from surrounding circumstances. At most,
sufficiency of available funds is only affirmative of the capacity or ability of the obligor to fulfill his part of
the bargain. But whether or not the obligor avails himself of such funds to settle his outstanding account
remains to be proven by independent and credible evidence. Tender of payment presupposes not only
that the obligor is able, ready, and willing, but more so, in the act of performing his obligation. Ab posse
ad actu non vale illatio. "A proof that an act could have been done is no proof that it was actually done." cralaw
virtua1aw library
The respondent court was therefore in error to have concluded from the sheer proof of sufficient available
funds on the part of the private respondent to meet more than the total obligation within the grace
period, the alleged truth of tender of payment. The same is a classic case of non-sequitur. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
On the contrary, the respondent court finds itself remiss in overlooking or taking lightly the more
important findings of fact made by the trial court which we have earlier mentioned and which as a rule,
are entitled to great weight on appeal and should be accorded full consideration and respect and should
not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons. 18
While the Court is not a trier of facts, yet, when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are at
variance with those of the trial court, 19 or when the inference of the Court of Appeals from its findings
of fact is manifestly mistaken, 20 the Court has to review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct
findings based on the record.
Apropos the second issue raised, although admittedly the documents for the deed of absolute sale had
not been prepared, the subject contract clearly provides that the full payment by the private respondent
is an a priori condition for the execution of the said documents by the petitioner.
That upon complete payment of the agreed consideration by the herein VENDEE, the VENDOR shall cause
the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the VENDEE. 21
The private respondent is therefore in estoppel to claim otherwise as the latter did in the testimony in
cross-examination of its president, Atty. Francisco, which reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Q Now, you mentioned, Atty. Francisco, that you wanted the defendant to execute the final deed of sale
before you would given (sic) the personal certified check in payment of your balance, is that correct?
A Yes, sir. 22
x x x
Art. 1159 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that "obligations arising from contracts have the
force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith." And unless the
stipulations in said contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, the
same are binding as between the parties.23
What the private respondent should have done if it was indeed desirous of complying with its obligations
would have been to pay the petitioner within the grace period and obtain a receipt of such payment duly
issued by the latter. Thereafter, or, allowing a reasonable time, the private respondent could have
demanded from the petitioner the execution of the necessary documents. In case the petitioner refused,
the private respondent could have had always resorted to judicial action for the legitimate enforcement of
its right. For the failure of the private respondent to undertake this more judicious course of action, it
alone shall suffer the consequences. chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
With regard to the third issue, granting arguendo that we would rule affirmatively on the two preceding
issues, the case of the private respondent still can not succeed in view of the fact that the latter used a
certified personal check which is not legal tender nor the currency stipulated, and therefore, can not
constitute valid tender of payment. The first paragraph of Art. 1249 of the Civil Code provides that "the
payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver
such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines.
The Court en banc in the recent case of Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 24 G.R. No. L-49188,
stated thus:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an
instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment (citing Sec. 189, Act 2031 on Negs. Insts.; Art. 1249,
Civil Code; Bryan London Co. v. American Bank, 7 Phil. 255; Tan Sunco v. Santos, 9 Phil. 44; 21 R.C.L.
60, 61). A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a
check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or
creditor.
Hence, where the tender of payment by the private respondent was not valid for failure to comply with
the requisite payment in legal tender or currency stipulated within the grace period and as such, was
validly refused receipt by the petitioner, the subsequent consignation did not operate to discharge the
former from its obligation to the latter.
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner in the legitimate exercise of its rights pursuant to the subject
contract, did validly order therefore the cancellation of the said contract, the forfeiture of the previous
payment, and the reconveyance ipso facto of the land in question. chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED and the DECISION of the respondent court
promulgated on April 25, 1985 is hereby SET ASIDE and ANNULLED and the DECISION of the trial court
dated May 25, 1981 is hereby REINSTATED. Costs against the private Respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. Promulgated on April 25, 1985; Zosa, M.A., J., ponente; Bartolome, F.C. and Ejercito,
B.C., JJ., concurring.
2. AC-G.R. CV No. 69626, Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corporation v. Roman
Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc.
3. Rollo, 37.
4/9
11/4/2019 G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. : NO…

G.R. No. 47210 November 21, 1990 - LECAROZ 4. Hon. Jesus M. Elbinias, Presiding Judge, Branch V.
TRANSIT, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.
5. Rollo, 9-11.
G.R. No. 78714 November 21, 1990 - F. DAVID
ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND
6. Annex "T", 2, Record on Appeal, Court of First Instance, Bulacan, Branch V, Rollo, 49.
AMERICA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 86500 November 21, 1990 - LEONARDO 7. Annex "C-3", Id.
SALAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
8. Annex "A-4", Id.
G.R. Nos. 89418-19 November 21, 1990 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ASPILI, ET AL. 9. Annex "A-5, Id.

G.R. No. 90591 November 21, 1990 - AMOR D. 10. Annex "T", 5, Id.
DELOSO v. MANUEL C. DOMINGO, ET AL.
11. Annex "C-6", Id.
G.R. No. 90669 November 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. GERRY V. MAÑAGO
12. Annex "C-7", 1-2, Id.
G.R. No. 92358 November 21, 1990 - OSCAR M.
ORBOS, ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG, ET AL. 13. Annex "T", 14, Id.

G.R. No. 94173 November 21, 1990 - DANIEL L. 14. Annex "T", 22 Id.
BOCOBO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.
15. Rollo, 35.
G.R. Nos. 49664-67 November 22, 1990 -
PANTRANCO SOUTH EXPRESS, INC. v. BOARD OF 16. Filed on October 25, 1985.
TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.
17. Rollo, 8-9.
G.R. No. 79119 November 22, 1990 - VICTORINO
E. DAY v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ZAMBOANGA
18. Natividad del Rosario Vda. de Alberto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 29759, May 18, 1989;
CITY, BRANCH XIII, ET AL.
Matabuena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 76542, May 5, 1989.
G.R. No. 82978 November 22, 1990 - MANILA
REMNANT CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 19. Robleza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 80364, June 28, 1989.

G.R. No. 93212 November 22, 1990 - DIOSDADO 20. Reynolds Philippine Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 38187, January 17, 1987.
DE VERA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL. 21. Rollo, 11.

G.R. No. 53967 November 26, 1990 - ALFREDO 22. T.s.n., June 9, 1977, 24.
VELASCO, ET AL. v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.
23. Article 1409, Civil Code, par. 1.
G.R. No. 75369 November 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO J. ILIGAN, ET AL.
24. Promulgated on January 30, 1990.
G.R. No. 83385 November 26, 1990 - GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. SANDIGANBAYAN,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 86791 November 26, 1990 - ZENAIDA

BOLOR CHANG v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET Back to Home | Back to Main
AL.

G.R. No. 58876 November 27, 1990 - ANICETO

RAMOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. QUICK SEARCH

G.R. No. 74223 November 27, 1990 - JUNE PRILL

BRETT, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL. 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. Nos. 84572-73 November 27, 1990 - ALFONSO 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
O. AJEJANDRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. 90314 November 27, 1990 - LOIDA Q. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
SHAUF, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
A.C. No. 2115 November 27, 1990 - FELICIDAD 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
BARIÑAN TAN v. GALILEO J. TROCIO
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
G.R. Nos. 91592-93 November 28, 1990 - PEOPLE 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN JOLIPAS
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
G.R. No. 72781 November 29, 1990 - PEOPLE OF 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO D. VILORIA, JR.
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
G.R. No. 64398 November 6, 1990 - JOSE CHING 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
SUI YONG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
AL.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990 - NATIVIDAD V.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
ANDAMO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 86953 November 6, 1990 - MARINE

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. v. RAINERIO O. REYES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 68282 November 8, 1990 - RAQUEL

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
CHAVEZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 75450 November 8, 1990 - OSMUNDO

MEDINA, ET AL. v. MACARIO A. ASISTIO, JR.

G.R. No. 88831 November 8, 1990 - MATEO CAASI

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92103 November 8, 1990 - VIOLETA T.

TEOLOGO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 71163-65 November 9, 1990 - CARLITO

P. BONDOC v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 76487 November 9, 1990 - JOHN Z. SYCIP

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 80916 November 9, 1990 - C.T. TORRES

ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ROMEO J. HIBIONADA, ET AL.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990novemberdecisions.php?id=2118 5/9
11/4/2019 G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. : NO…
G.R. No. 83897 November 9, 1990 - ESTEBAN B.
UY, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 85740 November 9, 1990 - MANUEL P.

PARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92024 November 9, 1990 - ENRIQUE T.

GARCIA v. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92349 November 9, 1990 - MARIA LUISA

ESTOESTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92481 November 9, 1990 - MANUEL G.

VIRAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94291 November 9, 1990 - DAGUPAN BUS

COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94339 November 9, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO TALINGDAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 59957 November 12, 1990 - CENTRAL

BANK OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 72603 November 12, 1990 - GALICANO

CALAPATIA, JR. v. HACIENDA BENITO, INC., ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 87760-61 November 12, 1990 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO TENEBRO

G.R. No. 90653 November 12, 1990 - POLICARPIO

CAPULE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 74048 November 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CRUZ

G.R. No. 79673 November 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. WARLITO FABRO

G.R. No. 85976 November 15, 1990 - JOSE CESAR

D. SIMPAO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 48646 November 16, 1990 - STAR

FORWARDERS, INC. v. MIGUEL R. NAVARRO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN

CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 76113 November 16, 1990 - D.P. LUB OIL

MARKETING CENTER, INC. v. RAUL NICOLAS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 84873 November 16, 1990 - ERLE PENDON

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 87636 November 19, 1990 - NEPTALI A.

GONZALES, ET AL. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET
AL.

G.R. No. 66541 November 20, 1990 - GUARDEX

ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 80201 November 20, 1990 - ANTONIO

GARCIA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 80406 November 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. BENITO I. ESPIRITU, ET AL.

G.R. No. 47210 November 21, 1990 - LECAROZ

TRANSIT, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

G.R. No. 78714 November 21, 1990 - F. DAVID

ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND
AMERICA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 86500 November 21, 1990 - LEONARDO

SALAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 89418-19 November 21, 1990 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ASPILI, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90591 November 21, 1990 - AMOR D.

DELOSO v. MANUEL C. DOMINGO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90669 November 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. GERRY V. MAÑAGO

G.R. No. 92358 November 21, 1990 - OSCAR M.

ORBOS, ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94173 November 21, 1990 - DANIEL L.

BOCOBO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 49664-67 November 22, 1990 -

PANTRANCO SOUTH EXPRESS, INC. v. BOARD OF
TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 79119 November 22, 1990 - VICTORINO

E. DAY v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ZAMBOANGA
CITY, BRANCH XIII, ET AL.

G.R. No. 82978 November 22, 1990 - MANILA

REMNANT CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 93212 November 22, 1990 - DIOSDADO

DE VERA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990novemberdecisions.php?id=2118 6/9
11/4/2019 G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. : NO…

G.R. No. 53967 November 26, 1990 - ALFREDO

VELASCO, ET AL. v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 75369 November 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO J. ILIGAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 83385 November 26, 1990 - GOVERNMENT

SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. SANDIGANBAYAN,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 86791 November 26, 1990 - ZENAIDA

BOLOR CHANG v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 58876 November 27, 1990 - ANICETO

RAMOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 74223 November 27, 1990 - JUNE PRILL

BRETT, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 84572-73 November 27, 1990 - ALFONSO

O. AJEJANDRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90314 November 27, 1990 - LOIDA Q.

SHAUF, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

A.C. No. 2115 November 27, 1990 - FELICIDAD

BARIÑAN TAN v. GALILEO J. TROCIO

G.R. Nos. 91592-93 November 28, 1990 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN JOLIPAS

G.R. No. 72781 November 29, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO D. VILORIA, JR.

G.R. No. 64398 November 6, 1990 - JOSE CHING

SUI YONG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990 - NATIVIDAD V.

ANDAMO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 86953 November 6, 1990 - MARINE

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. v. RAINERIO O. REYES, ET AL.

G.R. No. 68282 November 8, 1990 - RAQUEL

CHAVEZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 75450 November 8, 1990 - OSMUNDO

MEDINA, ET AL. v. MACARIO A. ASISTIO, JR.

G.R. No. 88831 November 8, 1990 - MATEO CAASI

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92103 November 8, 1990 - VIOLETA T.

TEOLOGO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 71163-65 November 9, 1990 - CARLITO

P. BONDOC v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 76487 November 9, 1990 - JOHN Z. SYCIP

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 80916 November 9, 1990 - C.T. TORRES

ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ROMEO J. HIBIONADA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 83897 November 9, 1990 - ESTEBAN B.

UY, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 85740 November 9, 1990 - MANUEL P.

PARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92024 November 9, 1990 - ENRIQUE T.

GARCIA v. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92349 November 9, 1990 - MARIA LUISA

ESTOESTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 92481 November 9, 1990 - MANUEL G.

VIRAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94291 November 9, 1990 - DAGUPAN BUS

COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94339 November 9, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO TALINGDAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 59957 November 12, 1990 - CENTRAL

BANK OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 72603 November 12, 1990 - GALICANO

CALAPATIA, JR. v. HACIENDA BENITO, INC., ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 87760-61 November 12, 1990 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO TENEBRO

G.R. No. 90653 November 12, 1990 - POLICARPIO

CAPULE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 74048 November 14, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CRUZ

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990novemberdecisions.php?id=2118 7/9
11/4/2019 G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. : NO…
G.R. No. 79673 November 15, 1990 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. WARLITO FABRO

G.R. No. 85976 November 15, 1990 - JOSE CESAR

D. SIMPAO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 48646 November 16, 1990 - STAR

FORWARDERS, INC. v. MIGUEL R. NAVARRO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN

CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

G.R. No. 76113 November 16, 1990 - D.P. LUB OIL

MARKETING CENTER, INC. v. RAUL NICOLAS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 84873 November 16, 1990 - ERLE PENDON

v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 87636 November 19, 1990 - NEPTALI A.

GONZALES, ET AL. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET
AL.

G.R. No. 66541 November 20, 1990 - GUARDEX

ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 80201 November 20, 1990 - ANTONIO

GARCIA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 80406 November 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. BENITO I. ESPIRITU, ET AL.

G.R. No. 47210 November 21, 1990 - LECAROZ

TRANSIT, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

G.R. No. 78714 November 21, 1990 - F. DAVID

ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND
AMERICA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 86500 November 21, 1990 - LEONARDO

SALAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 89418-19 November 21, 1990 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ASPILI, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90591 November 21, 1990 - AMOR D.

DELOSO v. MANUEL C. DOMINGO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90669 November 21, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. GERRY V. MAÑAGO

G.R. No. 92358 November 21, 1990 - OSCAR M.

ORBOS, ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94173 November 21, 1990 - DANIEL L.

BOCOBO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 49664-67 November 22, 1990 -

PANTRANCO SOUTH EXPRESS, INC. v. BOARD OF
TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 79119 November 22, 1990 - VICTORINO

E. DAY v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ZAMBOANGA
CITY, BRANCH XIII, ET AL.

G.R. No. 82978 November 22, 1990 - MANILA

REMNANT CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 93212 November 22, 1990 - DIOSDADO

DE VERA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 53967 November 26, 1990 - ALFREDO

VELASCO, ET AL. v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 75369 November 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO J. ILIGAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 83385 November 26, 1990 - GOVERNMENT

SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. SANDIGANBAYAN,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 86791 November 26, 1990 - ZENAIDA

BOLOR CHANG v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 58876 November 27, 1990 - ANICETO

RAMOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 74223 November 27, 1990 - JUNE PRILL

BRETT, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 84572-73 November 27, 1990 - ALFONSO

O. AJEJANDRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 90314 November 27, 1990 - LOIDA Q.

SHAUF, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

A.C. No. 2115 November 27, 1990 - FELICIDAD

BARIÑAN TAN v. GALILEO J. TROCIO

G.R. Nos. 91592-93 November 28, 1990 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN JOLIPAS

G.R. No. 72781 November 29, 1990 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO D. VILORIA, JR.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990novemberdecisions.php?id=2118 8/9
11/4/2019 G.R. No. 72110 November 16, 1990 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. : NO…

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990novemberdecisions.php?id=2118 9/9