This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-01-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court is not impressed. First, in withdrawing the amounts consigned, Dayrit and FGR expressly reserved the right to question the validity of the consignation. In Riesenbeck v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court held that: A sensu contrario, when the creditor's acceptance of the money consigned is conditional and with reservations, he is not deemed to have waived the claims he reserved against his debtor. Thus, when the amount consigned does not cover the entire obligation, the creditor may accept it, reserving his right to the balance (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Phil., Vol. IV, 1973 Ed., p. 317, citing 3 Llerena 263). The same factual milieu obtains here because the respondent creditor accepted with reservation the amount consigned in court by the petitioner-debtor. Therefore, the creditor is not barred from raising his other claims, as he did in his answer with special defenses and counterclaim against petitioner-debtor. | |||||