This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-02-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioners failed to prove in Civil Cases Nos. A-245 and A-2032 that any form of notice regarding their intention to deposit the amount of P724.00 with the Court of First Instance had been served upon respondents. This requirement is not fulfilled by the notice which could have ensued from the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. A-245 or the stipulation made between Francisco Tazal and Mamerto Reyes regarding the consignation of P724.00. The latter constitutes the second notice required by law as it already concerns the actual deposit or consignation of the amount and is different from the first notice that makes known the debtor's intention to deposit the amount, a requirement missing in the instant case.[19] Without any announcement of the intention to resort to consignation first being made to the persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation, the consignation as a means of payment is void.[20] | |||||