G.R. No.

100290

NORBERTO TIBAJIA, JR. and CARMEN TIBAJIA, Petitioners,

VS.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and EDEN TAN, Respondents.

Article 1249 modified by RA 529. Checks and Mercantile instruments as payment

June 4, 1993

FACTS OF THE CASE:

A suit for collection of sum of money was ruled in favor of Eden Tan and against
the spouses Norberto Jr. and Carmen Tibajia. After the decision was made final, Tan filed
a motion for execution and levied upon the garnished funds which were deposited by the
spouses with the cashier of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. The spouses, however,
delivered to the deputy sheriff the total money judgment in the form of Cashier’s Check
(P262,750) and Cash (P135,733.70). Tan refused the payment and insisted upon the
garnished funds to satisfy the judgment obligation. The spouses filed a motion to lift the
writ of execution on the ground that the judgment debt had already been paid. The motion
was denied.

ISSUE/S:

Is a payment by means of check considered payment in legal tender as required by the

Civil Code.

CONCLUSION:

No. The court quoted certain laws. Article 1249 of the civil code provides that “...the
delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile
documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed, or
when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired”, Section 1 of Republic Act
No. 529, as amended provides that the right to require payment in gold or in any particular
kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency is null and void and Section 63 of
Republic Act No. 265, as amended (Central Bank Act) Checks representing deposit
money do not have legal tender. From the aforequoted provisions of law, it is clear that
this petition must fail. An offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of
payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor.