Case Digest: Aniversario vs Ternate, 10 Phil 53

Aniversario vs Ternate, 10 Phil 53

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

By a written instrument, dated September 18, 1906, the plaintiff petitioned that the defendant be sentenced to the payment of 510 pesos, together with interest thereon from the date of the first demand for payment, with the costs.

The defendant pleaded that "on or about the 25th of November, 1902, he received from the plaintiff the sum of 510 pesos in payment of a horse which he then sold and delivered to her, and that the defendant has not received from the plaintiff any sum whatever with which to purchase a horse, and that he is in no wise indebted to the plaintiff."

On appeal taken for a review of the evidence, the appellant contends that the lower court erred in finding that Exhibit A of the plaintiff, and the contents thereof, rather support the contention of the defendant than the allegations of the complaint. Said exhibit is as follows: "Received from Doña Maria Aniversario the sum of five hundred and ten (510) pesos, in payment of the price of a white horse purchased at San Juan de Bocboc — Manila, November 25, 1902. — Florencio Ternate." The plaintiff, testifying in regard to this exhibit, said that she understood perfectly the contents of the above receipt, when the same was handed to her by Florencio Ternate.

ISSUE

Whether or not the money in question was payment “for a horse already purchased” or “for a horse to be purchased”.

RULING

Yes, the money in question was payment for a horse already purchased and not for a horse to be purchased.

Under the law (Article 1370 par.1, NCC), if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.

In this case, the money was paid for a horse already purchased. The document “exhibited by the plaintiff in support of her action does not prove all allegations of the complaint but those of the answer of the defendant, to the effect that the latter, on the abovementioned date, received the sum of P510, not to purchase a horse at that time, as contended by the plaintiff, but in payment of the price of a white horse already bought, as alleged by the defendant. This construction by the lower court is in conformity with the provisions of Article 1281 of the Civil Code (now Article 1370 of the new Civil Code) which says that “if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal sense of its provision shall be observed.” Hence, the defendant does not owe the appellant anything.