Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Art 1169 Cruz Vs Gruspe

    Uploaded by

    Kit Sigue
    27 views1 page
    Cruz was involved in a car collision where his minivan damaged Gruspe's car. They signed an agreement where Cruz would replace Gruspe's car within 20 days or pay 350,000 pesos, with 12% monthly interest until paid. Cruz failed to do so by the deadline. Gruspe filed a lawsuit on the 19th day. The court held that Cruz was in default since the obligation was demandable, liquidated, and Gruspe judicially demanded performance by filing the lawsuit. While upholding the agreement, the court changed the high 12% monthly interest to 12% annually.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Art 1169 Cruz vs Gruspe

    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
    Cruz was involved in a car collision where his minivan damaged Gruspe's car. They signed an agreement where Cruz would replace Gruspe's car within 20 days or pay 350,000 pesos, with 12% monthly interest until paid. Cruz failed to do so by the deadline. Gruspe filed a lawsuit on the 19th day. The court held that Cruz was in default since the obligation was demandable, liquidated, and Gruspe judicially demanded performance by filing the lawsuit. While upholding the agreement, the court changed the high 12% monthly interest to 12% annually.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views1 page

    Art 1169 Cruz Vs Gruspe

    Uploaded by

    Kit Sigue
    Cruz was involved in a car collision where his minivan damaged Gruspe's car. They signed an agreement where Cruz would replace Gruspe's car within 20 days or pay 350,000 pesos, with 12% monthly interest until paid. Cruz failed to do so by the deadline. Gruspe filed a lawsuit on the 19th day. The court held that Cruz was in default since the obligation was demandable, liquidated, and Gruspe judicially demanded performance by filing the lawsuit. While upholding the agreement, the court changed the high 12% monthly interest to 12% annually.

    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 1

    G.R. No.

    191431 March 13, 2013


    Rodolfo G. Cruz and Esperanza Ibias vs. Atty. Delfin Gruspe
    Article 1169: Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur delay from the time the oblige judicially
    or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation.

    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.

    On March 19 respondent filed a suit in the RTC.

    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.

    You might also like