You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

L-47878 July 24, 1942


GIL JARDENIL, plaintif-appellant,
vs.
HEFTI SOLAS (alias HEPTI SOLAS, JEPTI SOLAS), defendant-appellee.
Eleuterio J. Gustilo for appellant.
Jose C. Robles for appellee.
ORAN, 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 fxed in the promissory
note, or up to the date payment is efected This question is, in our opinion controlled by the express
stipulation of the parties.
!aragraph " of the mortgage deed recites:
#ue en consideracion a dicha suma aun por pagar de $%& 'I( )*+T,%)I-.T%& !-&%&
/!0,"111.112, moneda flipina, que el &r. 3epti &olas se compromete a pagar al &r. 4ardenil en o
antes del dia treintaiuno /562 de mar7o de mil novecientos treintaicuarto /685"2, con los intereses
de dicha suma al tipo de doce por ciento /6092 anual a partir desde fecha hasta el dia de su
vencimiento o sea treintaiuno /562 de mar7o de mil novecientos treintaicuatro /685"2, por la
presente, el &r. 3epti &olas cede y traspasa, por via de primera hipoteca, a favor del &r. 4ardenil, sus
herederos y causahabientes, la parcela de terreno descrita en el parrafo primero /6.:2 de esta
escritura.
$efendant-appellee has, therefore, clearly agreed to pay interest only up to the date of maturity, or until
'arch 56, 685". +s the contract is silent as to ;hether after that date, in the event of non-payment, the
debtor ;ould continue to pay interest, ;e cannot in la;, indulge in any presumption as to such interest<
other;ise, ;e ;ould be imposing upon the debtor an obligation that the parties have not chosen to agree
upon. +rticle 6=>> of the )ivil )ode provides that ?interest shall be due only ;hen it has been expressly
stipulated.? /-mphasis supplied.2
+ ;riting must be interpreted according to the legal meaning of its language /section 0@A, +ct .o. 681,
no; section >@, ,ule 6052, and only ;hen the ;ording of the ;ritten instrument appears to be contrary to
the evident intention of the parties that such intention must prevail. /+rticle 60@6, )ivil )ode.2 There is
nothing in the mortgage deed to sho; that the terms employed by the parties thereto are at ;ar ;ith their
evident intent. %n 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 ;ithin ;hich to
maBe payment, ;ithout maBing any mention of any interest ;hich the mortgagor should pay during the
additional period /see -xhibit C attached to the complaint2, indicates that the true intention of the parties
;as that no interest should be paid during the period of grace. Dhat reason the parties may have therefor,
;e need not here seeB to explore.
.either has either of the parties sho;n that, by mutual mistaBe, the deed of mortgage fails to express their
agreement, for if such mistaBe existed, plaintif ;ould have undoubtedly adduced evidence to establish it
and asBed that the deed be reformed accordingly, under the parcel-evidence rule.
De hold therefore, that as the contract is clear and unmistaBable and the terms employed therein have not
been sho;n to belie or other;ise fail to express the true intention of the parties and that the deed has not
been assailed on the ground of mutual mistaBe ;hich ;ould require its reformation, same should be given
its full force and efect. Dhen a party sues on a ;ritten contract and no attempt is made to sho; any vice
therein, he cannot be allo;ed to lay any claim more than ;hat its clear stipulations accord. 3is omission,
to ;hich the la; attaches a defnite ;arning as an in the instant case, cannot by the courts be arbitrarily
supplied by ;hat their o;n notions of Eustice or equity may dictate.
!laintif is, therefore, entitled only to the stipulated interest of 60 per cent on the loan of !0, "11 from
.ovember @, 6850 to 'arch 56, 685". +nd it being a fact that extra Eudicial demands have been made
;hich ;e 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 +pril 6, 685>, until full payment.
Thus modifed Eudgment is aFrmed, ;ith costs against appellant.
Yulo, C.J., Ozaeta and Bocobo, JJ., concur.
S"#$%$&" O#'('o()
PARAS, J., dissenting:
*nder the facts stated in the decision of the maEority, I come to the conclusion that interest at the rate of
60 per cent per annum should be paid up to the date of payment of the ;hole indebtedness is made.
!ayment of such interest is expressly stipulated. True, it is stated in the mortgage contract that interest
;as to be paid up to 'arch 56, 685", but this date ;as inserted merely because it ;as the date of
maturity. The extension note is silent as regards interest, but its payment is clearly implied from the nature
of the transaction ;hich is only a rene;al of the obligation. In my opinion, the ruling of the maEority is
anomalous and at ;ar ;ith common practice and everyday business usage.