Task 3: Video

Rosario D. Evangelista 2 nd Year BSBA Major in Financial Management.

G.R. No. L-3435 April 28, 1951. CLARA TAMBUNTING DE LEGARDA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. VICTORIA DESBARATS MIAILHE, substituting WILLIAM J. B. BURKE, defendant-appellee. Jose S. Sarte and M. H. de Joya for appellant Vicente L. Legarda. Salvador Barrios for appellant Pacifica Price de Barrios. Eduardo D. Gutierrez for appellant Augusto Tambunting. Feliciano Jover Ledesma and Ross, Selph, Carrascoso and Janda for appellee.

Facts: On June 3, 1944, plaintiffs filed a complaint against the original defendant William J. B. Burke, alleging the defendant's unjustified refusal to accept payment in discharge of a mortgage indebtedness in his favor, and praying that the latter be ordered to receive the sum of P75,920.83 deposited by plaintiff Clara Tambunting de Legarda, the mortgagor, on the same date with the clerk of this court in payment of the mortgage indebtedness of said plaintiff to defendant herein, to execute the corresponding deed of release of mortgage, and (30 to pay damages in the sum of P1,000.

May 26, 1944, where under defendant condoned the interests due and to become due on the mortgage indebtedness till the termination of the war, in consideration of the undertaking of the said plaintiff (with the consent of her husband Vicente L. Legarda, the other plaintiff) to pay her obligation to the defendant upon such termination of the war; and that war had not yet terminated.

On October 23, 1945, a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for the reconstitution of the record of this case. October 23, 1945, the defendant filed a supplements al answer alleging that the payment (by way of consignation in Japanese military notes made by plaintiff Clara Tambunting de Legarda in satisfaction of the mortgage obligation in question, which was originally contracted on the 17th of February, 1926, was null and void, and did not discharge the said obligation; and that, as plaintiffs well knew, defendant, did not plead the foregoing facts in his original answer because had he done so "he and his attorneys would have been taken by the Japanese military police to Fort Santiago where they would have been tortured and most probably killed.

In the order of December 24, 1945, declaring that the record of this case was reconstituted for all legal purposes, the then Judge presiding this court, Honorable Jose Guttierez David, denied the admission of the foregoing supplemental answer.

Issue: Whether or not the tender of payment by the plaintiff is valid.

Is there a contract?. None, because according to the facts that the contract that they made on the 17th of February, 1926, was null and void, and did not discharge the said obligation.

Can it be enforced?. Yes, because according to article 1202 the debtor shall lose the right of choice when among the prestations whereby he is alternatively bound, only one is practicable.

Ruling: On February 17, 1943, the only currency available was the Philippine currency, or the Japanese Military notes, because all other currencies, including the English, were outlawed by a proclamation issued by the Japanese Imperial Commander on January 3, 1942. The right to election ceased to exist on the date of the plaintiff's payment because it had become legally impossible.

And this is so because in alternative obligations there is no right to choose undertakings that are impossible or illegal. In other words, the obligation on the part of the debtor to pay the mortgage indebtedness has since then ceased to be an alternative. It appears, therefore, that the tender of payment in Japanese Military notes was a valid tender because it was the only currency permissible at the time and its payment was tantamount to payment in Philippine currency..