Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Art 1169 Cruz Vs Gruspe
Art 1169 Cruz Vs Gruspe
Facts:
Cruz the operator of the minivan had collision with the car of the respondent. The respondent’s car was
totally wrecked. The parties decided to have a joint affidavit of undertaking in which Cruz would
substitute the car of Gruspe with the same brand, same year and of same quality or pay P350,000. This
was to be complied within 20 days, failure to comply in the said date will have 12% per month of
interest until fully paid. In return for the approval of Cruz together with Leonard, the minivan of Cruz
shall be returned to his possession. Cruz failed to pay or change the car of Gruspe on March 15 or
exactly 20th day as said in the undertaking.
Issue:
Does the claim of the Petitioner that Gruspe did not make any demand upon and cannot take any action
yet has merit?
Held:
No, the claim of the Petitioner has no merit.
In order that the debtor may be in default, it is necessary that the following requisites be present: (1)
that the obligation be demandable and already liquidated; (2) that the debtor delays performance;
and (3) that the creditor requires the performance judicially and extrajudicially." Default generally
begins from the moment the creditor demands the performance of the obligation. In this case,
demand could be considered to have been made upon the filing of the complaint on November 19,
1999, and it is only from this date that the interest should be computed.
Although the CA upheld the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking, we note that it imposed interest rate on a per
annum basis, instead of the per month basis that was stated in the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking
without explaining its reason for doing so. Neither party, however, questioned the change. Nonetheless,
the Court affirms the change in the interest rate from 12% per month to 12% per annum, as we find the
interest rate agreed upon in the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking excessive.