Digest: Soco vs. Hon. Militante, et al. June 28, 1983 [GRN 58961 June 28, 1983]

FACTS: The plaintiff-appellee-Soco (lessor) and the defendant-appellant-Francisco (lessee) entered into a contract of lease on for commercial building and lot for a monthly rental of P800.00 for a period of 10 years renewable for another 10 years at the option of the lessee. One time, Francisco noticed that Soco did not anymore send her collector for the payment of rentals and at times there were payments made but no receipts were issued. Soon after Soco learned that Francisco sub-leased a portion of the building to NACIDA, at a monthly rental of more than P3,000.00 which is definitely very much higher than what Francisco was paying to Soco under the Contract of Lease, the latter felt that she was on the losing end of the lease agreement so she tried to look for ways and means to terminate the contract. Taking into account the factual background setting of this case, the Court holds that there was in fact a tender of payment of the rentals made by Francisco to Soco through Comtrust and since these payments were not accepted by Soco evidently because of her intention to evict Francisco, by all means, Francisco was impelled to deposit the rentals with the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Cebu, Soco was notified of this deposit. She was further notified of these payments by consignation. The City Court declared the payments of rentals valid and effective.

ISSUE: Whether or not the consignation was valid and effective.

HELD: In order that consignation may be effective, the debtor must first comply with certain requirements prescribed by law. The debtor must show (1) that there was a debt due; (2) that the consignation of the obligation had been made because the creditor to whom tender payment was made refused to accept it, or because he was absent or incapacitated, or because several persons claimed to be entitled to receive the amount due (Art. 1176, Civil Code); (3) that previous notice of the consignation had been given to the person interested in the performance of the obligation (Art. 1177, Civil Code); (4) that the amount due was placed at the disposal of the court (Art. 1178, Civil Code); and (5) that after the consignation had been made the person interested was notified thereof (Art. 1178, Civil Code). Failure in any of these requirements is enough ground to render a consignation ineffective.

SC ruled that the essential requisites of a valid consignation must be complied with fully and strictly in accordance with the law, as Articles 1256 to 1261, New Civil Code say. Substantial compliance is not enough for that would render only a directory construction to the law. The use of the words "shall" and "must" which are imperative, operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, positively indicate that all the essential requisites of a valid consignation must be complied with. The Civil Code Articles expressly and explicitly direct what must be essentially done in order that consignation shall be valid and effectual, as the law provides in Art 1257, 1258, 1249. SC held that the respondent lessee has utterly failed to prove the requisites of a valid consignation.