Gutierrez v. Carpio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The litigants entered into a compromise agreement on July 13, 1928, stipulating that if the plaintiffs failed to repurchase certain land within one month from the date of the agreement, ownership would vest in the defendant. The plaintiffs attempted to repurchase the land on August 13, 1928, by tendering payment via check. Procedural History: The court below ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the tender of reimbursement was made within the stipulated period and in a proper form. The defendant appealed this judgment. The Petition: The defendant argued that the stipulated period had already elapsed by August 13, that the tender of reimbursement by check was insufficient, and that the trial court's valuation of the land was groundless.
Issue(s)
Whether the tender of repurchase made on August 13, 1928, was within the stipulated period of one month. Whether a tender of payment by check is legally sufficient. Whether the trial court's valuation of the land affects the outcome of the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment, ordering that the plaintiffs may, within ten days from the finality of the judgment, repurchase the land by delivering the specified sum to the defendant. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On the stipulated period: The Court held that the stipulated month terminated on August 13, 1928. Applying Article 7 of the Civil Code as modified by Section 13 of the Administrative Code, a "month" refers to a civil or calendar month. The computation of the period, starting from July 13, 1928, excluded the date of the agreement (July 13) and included the corresponding day of the following calendar month. Therefore, the period began on July 14 and ended on August 13, making the tender on August 13 timely. On the sufficiency of payment by check: The Court agreed that payment by check does not per se constitute payment. However, it found that the defendant had previously consented to accept repurchase by check, as evidenced by testimony and the defendant's subsequent need to rebut this detail. By consenting to the repurchase by check and inducing the plaintiffs to act upon this belief, the defendant was estopped from refusing such payment on the following day. The offer to repurchase was thus legally effective and sufficient. On the valuation of the land: The Court deemed the assignment of error regarding the land's valuation to be without bearing on the decision of the case under the given circumstances, and thus did not affect the result.
Main Doctrine
A tender of payment by check is legally sufficient if the payee consents to accept it. The period of 'one month from the date thereof' in a compromise agreement, when computed from a specific date, excludes the date of the agreement and includes the corresponding day of the following calendar month, or the last day thereof if the succeeding month has fewer days.