FEBTC v. Diaz Realty Digest

Far East Bank & Trust v. Diaz Realty Inc.

G.R. No. 138588, August 23, 2001

Facts:

1. Diaz and Co. obtained a loan from Pacific Banking Corp. in 1974 in the amount of P720,000 at 12% interest p.a. which was increased thereafter.  The said loan was secured with a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land owned by Diaz Realty, herein respondent. Subsequently, the loan account was purchased by the petitioner Far East Bank (FEBTC). Two years after, the respondent through its President inquired about its obligation and upon learning of the outstanding obligation, it tendered payment in the form of an Interbank check in the amount of P1,450,000 in order to avoid the further imposition of interests. The payment was with a notation for the full settlement of the obligation.

2. The petitioner accepted the check but it alleged in its defense that it was merely a deposit. When the petitioner refused to release the mortgage, the respondent filed a suit. The lower court ruled that there was a valid tender of payment and ordered the petitioner to cancel the mortgage. Upon appeal, the appellate court affirmed the decision.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid tender of payment to extinguish the obligation of the respondent

RULING: Yes. Although jurisprudence tells us that a check is not a legal tender and a creditor may validly refuse it, this dictum does not prevent a creditor from accepting a check as payment. Herein, the petitioner accepted the check and the same was cleared. 

A tender of payment is the definitive act of of offering the creditor what is due him or her, together with the demand that he accepts it. More important is that there must be a concurrence of intent, ability and capability  to make good such offer, and must be absolute and must cover the amount due. The acts of the respondent manifest its intent, ability and capability. Hence, there was a valid tender of payment. 

Meanwhile, the transfer of credit from Pacific Bank to the petitioner did not involve an effective novation but an assignment of credit. As such, the petitioner has the right to collect the full value of the credit from the respondent subject to the conditions of the promissory note previously executed.