G.R. No. L-47878

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-47878
July 24, 1942
GIL JARDENIL, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
HEFTI SOLAS (alias HEPTI SOLAS, JEPTI SOLAS), defendant-appellee.
Eleuterio J. Gustilo for appellant.
Jose C. Robles for appellee.
MORAN, J.:
This is an action for foreclosure of mortgage. The only question raised in this appeal is: Is
defendant-appellee bound to pay the stipulated interest only up to the date of maturity as
fixed in the promissory note, or up to the date payment is effected? This question is, in
our opinion controlled by the express stipulation of the parties.
Paragraph 4 of the mortgage deed recites:
Que en consideracion a dicha suma aun por pagar de DOS MIL CUATROCIENTOS
PESOS (P2,4000.00), moneda filipina, que el Sr. Hepti Solas se compromete a pagar al
Sr. Jardenil en o antes del dia treintaiuno (31) de marzo de mil novecientos treintaicuarto
(1934), con los intereses de dicha suma al tipo de doce por ciento (12%) anual a partir
desde fecha hasta el dia de su vencimiento o sea treintaiuno (31) de marzo de mil
novecientos treintaicuatro (1934), por la presente, el Sr. Hepti Solas cede y traspasa, por
via de primera hipoteca, a favor del Sr. Jardenil, sus herederos y causahabientes, la
parcela de terreno descrita en el parrafo primero (1.) de esta escritura.
Defendant-appellee has, therefore, clearly agreed to pay interest only up to the date of
maturity, or until March 31, 1934. As the contract is silent as to whether after that date, in
the event of non-payment, the debtor would continue to pay interest, we cannot in law,
indulge in any presumption as to such interest; otherwise, we would be imposing upon
the debtor an obligation that the parties have not chosen to agree upon. Article 1755 of
the Civil Code provides that "interest shall be due only when it has been expressly
stipulated." (Emphasis supplied.)
A writing must be interpreted according to the legal meaning of its language (section 286,
Act No. 190, now section 58, Rule 123), and only when the wording of the written
instrument appears to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties that such intention
must prevail. (Article 1281, Civil Code.) There is nothing in the mortgage deed to show
that the terms employed by the parties thereto are at war with their evident intent. On the
contrary the act of the mortgage of granting to the mortgagor on the same date of
execution of the deed of mortgage, an extension of one year from the date of maturity
within which to make payment, without making any mention of any interest which the
mortgagor should pay during the additional period (see Exhibit B attached to the
complaint), indicates that the true intention of the parties was that no interest should be
paid during the period of grace. What reason the parties may have therefor, we need not
here seek to explore.
Neither has either of the parties shown that, by mutual mistake, the deed of mortgage fails
to express their agreement, for if such mistake existed, plaintiff would have undoubtedly
adduced evidence to establish it and asked that the deed be reformed accordingly, under
the parcel-evidence rule.
We hold therefore, that as the contract is clear and unmistakable and the terms employed
therein have not been shown to belie or otherwise fail to express the true intention of the
parties and that the deed has not been assailed on the ground of mutual mistake which
would require its reformation, same should be given its full force and effect. When a
party sues on a written contract and no attempt is made to show any vice therein, he
cannot be allowed to lay any claim more than what its clear stipulations accord. His
omission, to which the law attaches a definite warning as an in the instant case, cannot by
the courts be arbitrarily supplied by what their own notions of justice or equity may
dictate.
Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled only to the stipulated interest of 12 per cent on the loan of
P2, 400 from November 8, 1932 to March 31, 1934. And it being a fact that extra judicial
demands have been made which we may assume to have been so made on the expiration
of the year of grace, he shall be entitled to legal interest upon the principal and the
accrued interest from April 1, 1935, until full payment.
Thus modified judgment is affirmed, with costs against appellant.
Yulo, C.J., Ozaeta and Bocobo, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
PARAS, J., dissenting:
Under the facts stated in the decision of the majority, I come to the conclusion that
interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum should be paid up to the date of payment of
the whole indebtedness is made. Payment of such interest is expressly stipulated. True, it
is stated in the mortgage contract that interest was to be paid up to March 31, 1934, but
this date was inserted merely because it was the date of maturity. The extension note is
silent as regards interest, but its payment is clearly implied from the nature of the
transaction which is only a renewal of the obligation. In my opinion, the ruling of the
majority is anomalous and at war with common practice and everyday business usage.

G.R. No. L-47878

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-47878

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-47878

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

July 24, 1942

GIL JARDENIL, plaintiff-appellant,

You might also like