Spouses Norberto Jr. and Carmen Tibajia vs. Court of Appeals and Eden Tan | G.R. No. 100290 – Case Digest

  • Reading time:0 mins read


Spouses Norberto Jr. and Carmen Tibajia assailed on certiorari the decision of Court of Appeals which affirmed the ruling of the RTC that rendered the cashier’s check used by the spouses Tibajia as not a legal tender.

The case started when Eden Tan filed a petition to collect the sum of money from the spouses Tibajia before the RTC Branch 151 of Pasig. The said Court granted the petition which was subsequently affirmed by the CA on Tibajia’s appeal. Thereafter, Eden Tan filed a motion for execution.

In fulfillment of the judgment, the Spouses Tibajia delivered to the Sheriff the total money judgment worth P398,483.70. Of which, P262,750.00 is in the form of cashier’s check from BPI and the rest were cash. Tan refused to accept the payment.

The spouses filed a motion to lift the writ of execution but the RTC denied the same as it considered cashier’s check as not a payment in legal tender. The same ruling was affirmed by the CA.


Whether or not payment by means of a cashier’s check is considered payment in legal tender as required by the Civil Code.


No, a cashier’s check is not a legal tender based on Article 1249 of the Civil Code which provides:

“Article 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines.

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.

In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation shall be held in abeyance.”

From the aforequoted provision of law, it is clear that this petition must fail.

In the recent cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court held that·

“A check, whether a manager’s check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and 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.”

The ruling in these two (2) cases merely applies the statutory provisions which lay down the rule that a check is not legal tender and that a creditor may validly refuse payment by check, whether it be a manager’s, cashier’s or personal check.

In the more recent case of Fortunado vs. Court of Appeals, this Court stressed that, “We are not, by this decision, sanctioning the use of a check for the payment of obligations over the objection of the creditor.”

Petition is DENIED.