The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified that the enforceability of a document, regardless of its title, hinges on the presence of essential contract elements and the parties’ intent. The Court ruled that a “Joint Affidavit of Undertaking” could be considered a contract if it contains the elements of consent, object, and consideration, emphasizing that the title alone is not determinative. Further, the Court modified the interest computation, clarifying that interest accrues from the date of judicial demand, not from the date stipulated for payment in the absence of prior demand.

Affidavit or Contract? Unpacking a Debt Arising from a Car Accident

This case stems from a vehicular accident where a mini bus owned by Rodolfo Cruz collided with Atty. Delfin Gruspe’s car, resulting in a total loss for Gruspe. In the aftermath, Cruz and Leonardo Ibias executed a “Joint Affidavit of Undertaking,” promising to replace Gruspe’s car or pay its value of P350,000.00. When they failed to fulfill this promise, Gruspe sued for collection. The central legal question is whether this affidavit constitutes a valid contract, binding Cruz and Ibias to their commitment, and from what date should interest on the obligation accrue.

The petitioners, Cruz and Ibias, argued that the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking was merely an affidavit attesting to facts and not a contract requiring a meeting of the minds. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the nature of a document is determined not by its title but by its contents and the intention of the parties. The Court cited the case of Tayco v. Heirs of Concepcion Tayco-Flores, stating that “[t]he denomination given by the parties in their contract is not conclusive of the nature of the contents.” The Court underscored that when interpreting a document, the intention of the parties is paramount and must be pursued, referencing Ayala Life Assurance, Inc. v. Ray Burton Dev’t. Corp.

The Court dissected the affidavit’s terms, revealing stipulations characteristic of a contract: a promise to replace the car or pay its value, coupled with a specified timeframe and interest on delayed payments. These terms, the Court reasoned, were straightforward and easily understood by both parties. Building on this, the Court addressed the petitioners’ claim of vitiated consent, asserting that such allegations must be substantiated by a preponderance of evidence, which Cruz and Ibias failed to provide. Their admission of signing the affidavit to secure the release of their vehicle further weakened their claim of coercion. Even if the release of the vehicle was conditional upon signing the affidavit, it does not automatically equate to vitiated consent. The Court suggests that while the consent may have been given grudgingly, it did not invalidate the contract.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the crucial issue of demand and its impact on the accrual of interest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ordered interest to be computed from November 15, 1999, the date stipulated for payment in the affidavit. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that, in the absence of prior demand, interest should accrue only from the date of judicial demand, which in this case was the filing of the complaint on November 19, 1999. This ruling aligns with Article 1169 of the Civil Code, which states:

Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation.

The Court reiterated the requisites for a debtor to be considered in default, citing Social Security System v. Moonwalk Development and Housing Corporation:

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.

Because there was no finding of prior demand, the Court adjusted the commencement date for interest calculation. Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the interest rate stipulated in the Joint Affidavit of Undertaking. While the agreement specified 12% per month, the Court of Appeals (CA) reduced it to 12% per annum. The Supreme Court affirmed this modification, deeming the original monthly rate excessive, referencing the case of Asian Cathay Finance and Leasing Corporation v. Spouses Gravador.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the “Joint Affidavit of Undertaking” constituted a valid and enforceable contract, and from what date should interest accrue on the obligation. The court also looked into whether or not consent was vitiated.
What are the essential elements of a valid contract?	A valid contract requires consent, a definite object, and a cause or consideration. The absence of any of these elements can render the contract void or unenforceable.
What is the significance of a demand in an obligation to pay?	A demand, whether judicial or extrajudicial, is crucial because it puts the debtor in default, triggering the accrual of interest and other consequences for non-performance. Without a demand, the debtor is not considered to be in delay.
How does the court determine if consent to a contract is vitiated?	The court examines the circumstances surrounding the contract’s execution, including any evidence of force, intimidation, undue influence, or mistake. The burden of proof lies on the party claiming vitiated consent.
What is the legal effect of signing a document to secure the release of property?	Signing a document, even under pressure to secure the release of property, does not automatically invalidate the agreement. Unless there is clear evidence of vitiated consent, the agreement remains binding.
Why did the court reduce the interest rate in this case?	The court deemed the stipulated interest rate of 12% per month excessive and unconscionable. It reduced the rate to 12% per annum, aligning with prevailing jurisprudence on reasonable interest rates.
What is the difference between an affidavit and a contract?	An affidavit is a sworn statement of facts, while a contract is an agreement creating obligations between parties. The key distinction lies in the intent to create binding obligations.
When does default begin in an obligation?	Default generally begins from the moment the creditor demands performance of the obligation, either judicially or extrajudicially. This demand is a prerequisite for holding the debtor liable for delay.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of scrutinizing the substance of agreements over their formal titles and the necessity of proving vitiated consent to invalidate a contract. It also highlights the significance of demand in determining the commencement of interest accrual, providing clarity on the obligations and rights of parties entering into agreements.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RODOLFO G. CRUZ AND ESPERANZA IBIAS, VS. ATTY. DELFIN GRUSPE, G.R. No. 191431, March 13, 2013