Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cruz Vs Gruspe
Cruz Vs Gruspe
DELFIN GRUSPE
[GR NO. 191431] - MARCH 13, 2013
FACTS:
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.