Cruz Vs Gruspe

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
 
Cruz Vs Gruspe, GR 191431, March 13, 2013
Contracts are obligatory no maer what their forms may be, whenever the essenal requisites for theirvalidity are present. In determining whether a document is an adavit or a contract, the Court looksbeyond the tle of the document, since the denominaon or tle given by the pares in their documentis not conclusive of the nature of its contents. In the construcon or interpretaon of an instrument, theintenon of the pares is primordial and is to be pursued. If the terms of the document are clear andleave no doubt on the intenon of the contracng pares, the literal meaning of its spulaons shallcontrol. If the words appear to be contrary to the pares’ evident intenon, the laer shall prevail overthe former. In order that the debtor may be in default, it is necessary that the following requisites be present: (1) that the obligaon be demandable and already liquidated; (2) that the debtor delays performance; and (3) that the creditor requires the performance judicially and extrajudicially.—The 15% interest (later modied by the CA to be 12%) was computed from November 15, 1999—the date spulated in the JointAdavit of Undertaking for the payment of the value of Gruspe’s car. In the absence of a nding by the lower courts that Gruspe made a demand prior to the ling of the complaint, the interest cannot be computed from November 15, 1999 because unl a demand has been made, Cruz and Leonardo could not be said to be in default. Default generally begins from the moment the creditor demands the performance of the obligaon. In this case, demand could be considered to have been made upon the ling of the complaint on November 19, 1999, and it is only from this date that the interest should be computed
5

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505