G.R. No. L-9160; April 30, 1957
ADRIANO GOLEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARMELO S. CAMARA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This case involves the execution of a prior Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. L-4460, October 3, 1953). The dispositive part of that decision ordered that appellant Carmelo S. Camara was indebted to appellee Adriano Golez for specified sums with interest, which indebtedness Camara had to settle before being entitled to a conveyance of “the land in question.” The 90-day period for compliance was to start from the finality of that decision. When the records were returned to the court of origin, Golez deposited P25,386.33 (P386.33 in cash and P25,000 via a Philippine National Bank Manager’s check) with the court and prayed that Camara be ordered to make the conveyance. An issue arose regarding whether Camara should convey seven (7) parcels of land or twenty-four (24) lots. Camara also assailed the validity of the deposit because it was made partly by check. The lower court upheld the deposit’s legality but initially sustained Camara’s claim that only seven lots should be conveyed. After motions for reconsideration by Golez, the court eventually held that Golez was entitled to a conveyance of twenty-four (24) lots. Camara appealed.
The background reveals that two haciendas (Aurelia and Buenavista) were co-owned by Golez and others, including Isidoro Jimenez, Aurelia Jimenez, and Vicente Jimenez Yanson. To satisfy a judgment debt in favor of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), the sheriff sold the Jimenezes’ interest in the haciendas at public auction to the PNB, subject to redemption. The Jimenezes and Golez sought Camara’s assistance. This led to two deeds: (1) a “compromiso de venta” (promise to sell) dated December 29, 1931, where PNB promised to sell to Camara its interest in seven lots of the haciendas and seventeen other specified lots, with the Jimenezes assigning their right of redemption to Camara; and (2) an “Escritura de Arrendamiento” (deed of lease) dated December 31, 1931, involving Golez, the Locsins (as lessors), Camara (as lessee), and the Jimenezes. This lease deed referred to the “compromiso de venta” covering twenty-four lots and stipulated that once payment was made to PNB, all properties covered by the promise to sell would be delivered to Adriano Golez.

ISSUE

1. Whether the judicial consignation (deposit) made by Golez was valid and effective despite being made partly via a manager’s check.
2. What properties (seven lots or twenty-four lots) must be conveyed by Camara to Golez under the prior Supreme Court decision.

RULING

1. The judicial consignation was valid and effective. Article 1249 of the Civil Code, which Camara relied upon, deals with the payment of debts and is inapplicable because Golez was not a debtor to Camara; he had an option or right of redemption. Even if it were applicable, the delivery of a check produces the effect of payment when cashed. Here, the manager’s check was indorsed to the Provincial Treasurer, deposited with the PNB, and honored, making the amount available in cash. Furthermore, Camara effectively accepted the deposit by not objecting for months and by initially moving to withdraw the deposited amount, only challenging it later when the dispute over the number of lots arose.
2. Camara must convey twenty-four (24) lots to Golez. The “compromiso de venta” and the “Escritura de Arrendamiento,” read together as part of one scheme, show that the transaction involved twenty-four lots specified in the instruments. The lease deed explicitly stated that upon payment to PNB, all properties covered by the promise to sell would be delivered to Golez. The Supreme Court held that the phrase “land in question” in its prior decision referred to these twenty-four lots, as the payment fixed was the consideration for the conveyance undertaken by Camara.
The order appealed from was affirmed.