Ang Nam Vs Peregrina
Ang Nam Vs Peregrina
SYLLABUS
DECISION
LABRADOR , J : p
The cases cited by the appellant in his brief do not support his contention. In the
case of Gomez vs. Tabia, * 47 Off. Gaz. (No. 2) 641, the period xed for the vendor a
retro to redeem the land he sold was "within 30 days after the expiration of one year
from June 24, 1944," and in that of Roo vs. Gomez, 1 et al., 46 Off. Gaz., (Supp. No. 11)
339, the loan was to be paid one year after October 5, 1944, date of the loan. In the rst
case the land was redeemable only after June 24, 1945, and in the second the loan was
payable only on October 5, 1945. The obligations could not be paid before these dates.
The obligations were, therefore, held payable in the currency in existence on those
dates.
Footnotes
* 84 Phil. 269.
1. 83 Phil., 890.
2. 83 Phil., 471.
3. 84 Phil., 206.