2014 (Civil Law) Bar Exam Questions: Question 10

[Answer/discuss the question below. Or see 2014 bar exam Civil Law Instructions; 2014 Labor Law essay and multiple choice Questions: 12345678910121314151617181920212223242526272829 and 30; See also 2014 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]


Dorotea leased portions of her 2,000 sq. m. lot to Monet, Kathy, Celia, and Ruth for five (5) years. Two (2) years before the expiration of the lease contract, Dorotea sold the property to PM Realty and Development Corporation. The following month, Dorotea and PM Realty stopped accepting rental payments from all the lessees because they wanted to terminate the lease contracts.

Due to the refusal of Dorotea to accept rental payments, the lessees, Ruth, et al., filed a complaint for consignation of the rentals before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila without notifying Dorotea.

Is the consignation valid? (4%)

One comment

  1. The consignation is void.

    Consignation in order to be valid must have the following requisites:
    (a) Valid Tender of Payment
    (b) Prior notice
    (c) Subsequent tender
    (d) Existence of a valid debt
    (e) Actual Consignation

    In the case at bar, there was a valid tender of payment made before consignation. In fact there was unjust refusal by PM Realty to accept payment. However, absent the first notice as required by law, the consignment is void for having failed to meet the notice requirement. Had Dorotea mentioned in his tender of payment that a suit shall commence if payment is refused, the notice requirement is complied.

    Hence, consignation is void and Dorotea shall be liable for interests on unpaid rents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *