Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Cruz vs. Gruspe

    Uploaded by

    Lucille Arianne
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Rodolfo Cruz, Esperanza Ibias, and Atty. Delfin Gruspe. After a car accident, Cruz and Ibias signed a joint affidavit promising to replace Gruspe's damaged car within 20 days or pay 350,000 pesos. When they failed to do so, Gruspe filed a collection case. The Court ruled the joint affidavit was a valid contract as it contained the essential elements of one, such as an obligation to replace the car or pay damages. Cruz and Ibias failed to sufficiently prove their consent was vitiated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cruz vs. Gruspe

    Uploaded by

    Lucille Arianne
    3K views2 pages
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Rodolfo Cruz, Esperanza Ibias, and Atty. Delfin Gruspe. After a car accident, Cruz and Ibias signed a joint affidavit promising to replace Gruspe's damaged car within 20 days or pay 350,000 pesos. When they failed to do so, Gruspe filed a collection case. The Court ruled the joint affidavit was a valid contract as it contained the essential elements of one, such as an obligation to replace the car or pay damages. Cruz and Ibias failed to sufficiently prove their consent was vitiated.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Rodolfo Cruz, Esperanza Ibias, and Atty. Delfin Gruspe. After a car accident, Cruz and Ibias signed a joint affidavit promising to replace Gruspe's damaged car within 20 days or pay 350,000 pesos. When they failed to do so, Gruspe filed a collection case. The Court ruled the joint affidavit was a valid contract as it contained the essential elements of one, such as an obligation to replace the car or pay damages. Cruz and Ibias failed to sufficiently prove their consent was vitiated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views2 pages

    Cruz vs. Gruspe

    Uploaded by

    Lucille Arianne
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Rodolfo Cruz, Esperanza Ibias, and Atty. Delfin Gruspe. After a car accident, Cruz and Ibias signed a joint affidavit promising to replace Gruspe's damaged car within 20 days or pay 350,000 pesos. When they failed to do so, Gruspe filed a collection case. The Court ruled the joint affidavit was a valid contract as it contained the essential elements of one, such as an obligation to replace the car or pay damages. Cruz and Ibias failed to sufficiently prove their consent was vitiated.

    Copyright:

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

    RODOLFO G.

    CRUZ and ESPERANZA IBIAS,


    vs. ATTY. DELFIN GRUSPE
    G.R. No. 191431, March 13, 2013

    Facts:
    The claim arose from an accident when the mini bus owned and operated
    by Cruz and driven by one Arturo Davin collided with the Toyota Corolla car of
    Gruspe; Gruspes car was a total wreck. The next day,Cruz, along with Leon
    ardo Q. Ibias went to Gruspes office, apologized for the incident, and executed
    a Joint Affidavit of Undertaking promising jointly and severally to replace the
    Gruspes 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 Gruspes car amounting to P350,000.00, 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.
    Cruz and Leonardo denied Gruspes allegation, claiming that Gruspe, a
    lawyer, prepared the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking and forced them to affix
    their signatures thereon, without explaining and informing them of its
    contents.

    Issue: Whether or not the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking is a contract that can
    be the basis of an obligation to pay a 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.
    The Joint Affidavit of Undertaking contained a stipulation where Cruz and
    Leonardo promised to replace the damaged car of Gruspe, 20 days from
    October 25, 1999 or up to November 15, 1999, of the same model and of at
    least the same quality. In the event that they cannot replace the car within the
    same period, they would pay the cost of Gruspes car in the total amount
    of P350,000.00, with interest at 12% per month for any delayed payment after
    November 15, 1999, until fully paid. These, are very simple terms that both
    Cruz and Leonardo could easily understand. An allegation of vitiated consent
    must be proven by preponderance of evidence; Cruz and Leonardo failed to
    support their allegation.

    You might also like