Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cruz Vs Gruspe

    Uploaded by

    Jhai Jhai Dumsyy
    24 views2 pages
    Rodolfo Cruz and Leonardo Q. Ibias executed a Joint Affidavit of Undertaking promising to replace Delfin Gruspe's damaged vehicle within 20 days of an accident caused by Cruz's vehicle, or pay ₱350,000. When they failed to comply, Gruspe filed a collection case. The Supreme Court ruled the Joint Affidavit was a valid contract and could be the basis for obligation to pay, as the document showed characteristics of a contract based on the parties' intentions, despite its title as an affidavit. The Court also found no evidence presented to support Cruz and Leonardo's claim of vitiated consent.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    cruz vs gruspe.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rodolfo Cruz and Leonardo Q. Ibias executed a Joint Affidavit of Undertaking promising to replace Delfin Gruspe's damaged vehicle within 20 days of an accident caused by Cruz's vehicle, or pay ₱350,000. When they failed to comply, Gruspe filed a collection case. The Supreme Court ruled the Joint Affidavit was a valid contract and could be the basis for obligation to pay, as the document showed characteristics of a contract based on the parties' intentions, despite its title as an affidavit. The Court also found no evidence presented to support Cruz and Leonardo's claim of vitiated consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views2 pages

    Cruz Vs Gruspe

    Uploaded by

    Jhai Jhai Dumsyy
    Rodolfo Cruz and Leonardo Q. Ibias executed a Joint Affidavit of Undertaking promising to replace Delfin Gruspe's damaged vehicle within 20 days of an accident caused by Cruz's vehicle, or pay ₱350,000. When they failed to comply, Gruspe filed a collection case. The Supreme Court ruled the Joint Affidavit was a valid contract and could be the basis for obligation to pay, as the document showed characteristics of a contract based on the parties' intentions, despite its title as an affidavit. The Court also found no evidence presented to support Cruz and Leonardo's claim of vitiated consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    RODOLFO CRUZ V. ATTY.

    DELFIN GRUSPE
    [GR NO. 191431] - MARCH 13, 2013

    FACTS:

    The claim arose from an accident that occurred on October


    24, 1999, when the mini bus owned and operated by Cruz and driven
    by one Arturo Davin collided with the Toyota Corolla car of
    Gruspe; Gruspe’s car was a total wreck.

    The next day, on October 25, 1999, Cruz, along with Leonardo
    Q. Ibias went to Gruspe’s office, apologized for the incident,
    and executed a Joint Affidavit of Undertaking promising jointly
    and severally to replace the Gruspe’s damaged car in 20 days, or
    until November 15, 1999, of the same model and of at least the
    same quality; or, alternatively, they would pay the cost of
    Gruspe’s car amounting to ₱350,000.00, with interest at 12% per
    month for any delayed payment after November 15, 1999, until
    fully paid. When Cruz and Leonardo failed to comply with their
    undertaking, Gruspe filed a complaint for collection of sum of
    money against them on November 19, 1999 before the RTC.

    ISSUE:
    Is the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking a Contract that can be
    used as a basis of obligation to pay sum of money?

    HELD:
    A simple reading of the terms of the Joint Affidavit of
    Undertaking readily discloses that it contains stipulations
    characteristic of a contract. Contracts are obligatory no matter
    what their forms may be, whenever the essential requisites for
    their validity are present.
    In determining whether a document is an affidavit or a
    contract, the Court looks beyond the title of the document, since
    the denomination or title given by the parties in their document
    is not conclusive of the nature of its contents. In the
    construction or interpretation of an instrument, the intention of
    the parties is primordial and is to be pursued.
    If the terms of the document are clear and leave no doubt on
    the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of
    its stipulations shall control. If the words appear to be
    contrary to the parties’ evident intention, the latter shall
    prevail over the former.
    Thus, on the issue of the validity and enforceability of the
    Joint Affidavit of Undertaking, the CA did not commit any legal
    error that merits the reversal of the assailed decision. There is
    also no merit to the argument of vitiated consent. An allegation
    of vitiated consent must be proven by preponderance of evidence;
    Cruz and Leonardo failed to support their allegation.
    Wherefore, the Court finds the petition partly meritorious
    and accordingly modifies the judgment of the CA.

    You might also like