Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 140 views

    Azcona v. Jamandre

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Claudine Calugan
    1) Guillermo Azcona leased 80 hectares of land to Cirilo Jamandre for 3 years at a yearly rental of P7200. However, Azcona was unable to deliver possession on the due date for the first rental so waived payment. Jamandre paid P7000 which Azcona accepted without protest. 2) Azcona later tried to cancel the contract, claiming Jamandre did not attach a parcelary plan, secure approval from PNB, and underpaid rent. The Court ruled the land was adequately identified without the plan. Approval was not Jamandre's sole responsibility. And Azcona accepted the rent without noting any deficiency. 3) The Court

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Azcona v. Jamandre

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Claudine Calugan
    140 views1 page
    1) Guillermo Azcona leased 80 hectares of land to Cirilo Jamandre for 3 years at a yearly rental of P7200. However, Azcona was unable to deliver possession on the due date for the first rental so waived payment. Jamandre paid P7000 which Azcona accepted without protest. 2) Azcona later tried to cancel the contract, claiming Jamandre did not attach a parcelary plan, secure approval from PNB, and underpaid rent. The Court ruled the land was adequately identified without the plan. Approval was not Jamandre's sole responsibility. And Azcona accepted the rent without noting any deficiency. 3) The Court

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Guillermo Azcona leased 80 hectares of land to Cirilo Jamandre for 3 years at a yearly rental of P7200. However, Azcona was unable to deliver possession on the due date for the first rental so waived payment. Jamandre paid P7000 which Azcona accepted without protest. 2) Azcona later tried to cancel the contract, claiming Jamandre did not attach a parcelary plan, secure approval from PNB, and underpaid rent. The Court ruled the land was adequately identified without the plan. Approval was not Jamandre's sole responsibility. And Azcona accepted the rent without noting any deficiency. 3) The Court

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    140 views1 page

    Azcona v. Jamandre

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Claudine Calugan
    1) Guillermo Azcona leased 80 hectares of land to Cirilo Jamandre for 3 years at a yearly rental of P7200. However, Azcona was unable to deliver possession on the due date for the first rental so waived payment. Jamandre paid P7000 which Azcona accepted without protest. 2) Azcona later tried to cancel the contract, claiming Jamandre did not attach a parcelary plan, secure approval from PNB, and underpaid rent. The Court ruled the land was adequately identified without the plan. Approval was not Jamandre's sole responsibility. And Azcona accepted the rent without noting any deficiency. 3) The Court

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Azcona v.

    Jamandre
    G.R. No. L-30597. June 30, 1987.
    CRUZ, J.:
    Facts
    Art 1235 – When the obligee accepts the performance, knowing its incompleteness or irregularity, and
    without expressing any protest or objection, the obligation is deemed fully complied with.

    Guillermo Azcona leased 80 hectares out of his 150 hectare share in Hacienda Sta. Fe in Negros
    Occidental to Cirilo Jamandre. The agreed yearly rental was P7200 and the term was for 3 agricultural
    years beginning 1960. On March 30, 1960, when the first annual rent was due, petitioner was not able
    to deliver possession of the leased property thus he “waived” payment of that rental. Respondent only
    entered the premises on October 26, 1960 after paying P7000, which was acknowledged by the
    petitioner in the receipt. On April 6, 1961, the petitioner notified respondent that the contract of lease
    was deemed cancelled for violation of the conditions of the contract. Earlier, in fact, the respondent had
    been ousted from the possession of the 60 hectares of the leased premises and let with only 20 hectares
    of the original area.

    Issues
    Whether or not the lease contract is deemed cancelled upon failure of the respondent to:
    1. Attach the parcelary plan identifying the exact area subject of the contract
    2. Secure approval of PNB of said contract
    3. Pay the rentals

    Ruling

    Parcelary Plan
    The correct view is that there was an agreed subject-matter, although it was not expressly defined
    because the plan was not annexed and never approved. There was still an ascertainable object because
    the leased premises were sufficiently delineated and identified. Failure to attach the plan was imputable
    to the petitioner himself because he was supposed to prepare the said plan. Nevertheless, the
    identification of the lease area rendered the plan unnecessary and its absence did not nullify the
    agreement.

    PNB Approval
    Petitioners claim that such possession was not delivered because the approval of bythe PNB had not
    materialized due to respondent's neglect. Respondent was negotiating the loan with PNB but the
    contract does not state upon whom fell the obligation to secure the approval.

    Payment of Rent
    Petitioner contends that the payment of P7000, which was short of P200, was a violation of the
    agreement thus the contract should be deemed cancelled. But the petitioner unqualifiedly accepted the
    amount. The absence of any mention of the discrepancy in the receipt nor any protest or demand to
    collect the remaining balance, means that petitioner acknowledged the amount as the full payment for
    the rent. The SC affirms the decision of the CA and petition is denied.

    You might also like