Azcona v. Jamandre Facts Guillermo Azcona leased 80 hectares out of his 150 hectare share in Hacienda Sta.

Fe in Negros Occidental to Cirilo Jamandre. The agreed yearly rental was P7200 and the term was for 3 agricultural years beginning 1960. On March 30, 1960, when the first annual rent was due, petitioner was not able to deliver possession of the leased property thus he waived payment of that rental. Respondent only entered the premises on October 26, 1960 after paying P7000, which was acknowledged by the petitioner in the receipt. On April 6, 1961, the petitioner notified respondent that the contract of lease was deemed cancelled for violation of the conditions of the contract. Earlier, in fact, the respondent had been ousted from the possession of the 60 hectares of the leased premises and let with only 20 hectares of the original area. Issues Whether or not the lease contract is deemed cancelled upon failure of the respondent to: 1. Attach the parcelary plan identifying the exact area subject of the contract 2. Secure approval of PNB of said contract 3. Pay the rentals Ruling Parcelary Plan The correct view is that there was an agreed subject-matter, although it was not expressly defined because the plan was not annexed and never approved. There was still an ascertainable object because the leased premises were sufficiently delineated and identified. Failure to attach the plan was imputable to the petitioner himself because he was supposed to prepare the said plan. Nevertheless, the identification of the lease area rendered the plan unnecessary and its absence did not nullify the agreement. PNB Approval Petitioners claim that such possession was not delivered because the approval of bythe PNB had not materialized due to respondent's neglect. Respondent was negotiating the loan with PNB but the contract does not state upon whom fell the obligation to secure the approval. Payment of Rent Petitioner contends that the payment of P7000, which was short of P200, was a violation of the agreement thus the contract should be deemed cancelled. But the petitioner unqualifiedly accepted the amount. The absence of any mention of the discrepancy in the receipt nor any protest or demand to collect the remaining balance, means that petitioner acknowledged the amount as the full payment for the rent. The SC affirms the decision of the CA and petition is denied. Note: The CA held that the amount of P200 had been condoned but the SC viewed it as a mere reduction of the stipulated rental in consideration of the withdrawal from the leased premises where the petitioner intended to graze his cattle. Relevant Articles/ Jurisprudence Art 1235 When the obligee accepts the performance, knowing its incompleteness or irregularity, and without expressing any protest or objection, the obligation is deemed fully complied with.