Title
Gurango vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 75290
Decision Date
Nov 4, 1992
A dispute over a raffle prize arose when a winning Toyota Corolla ticket, held by Ferreira, was claimed by Gurango. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of their written agreement, ruling in favor of Ferreira, emphasizing the binding nature of written contracts and rejecting parol evidence.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 251477)

Facts of the Case

On January 26, 1977, Edward Ferreira sold a booklet of raffle tickets valued at Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) to Amado Gurango. These tickets were for a fund-raising project by the Makati Jaycees. During the raffle event on April 14, 1977, ticket number 162574 won a Toyota Corolla car. Amado Gurango issued a check for P300.00 for sixty tickets while entrusting the remaining forty tickets to Ferreira. Subsequently, an agreement was drafted asserting that they both retain ownership of the tickets held, regardless of whose name was printed on the stubs.

Development of the Dispute

On April 15, 1977, Ferreira informed Gurango that the latter’s tickets did not win anything, despite the winning ticket belonging to the latter’s son. However, Gurango later discovered, through a newspaper, that his ticket indeed won. Upon confronting Ferreira, it was revealed that Gurango had mistakenly dated the handwritten agreement as April 14, instead of April 15, the date he intended. Disagreements ensued regarding the division of winnings, with Gurango disavowing their written agreement and asserting his claims through a letter to the Makati Jaycees.

Procedural History

Ferreira subsequently filed for damages in the Court of First Instance, which ruled in favor of Gurango, stating Ferreira failed to establish a cause of action. Ferreira's appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court led to a reversal of the lower court's decision, mandating Gurango to pay Ferreira the sum of P36,000.00 and P5,000.00 in attorney fees. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court for review.

Legal Questions

The core issue revolved around the validity of the agreement between Gurango and Ferreira. Under the Revised Rules of Court, the finality of a written agreement prohibits alterations unless demonstrated through evidence of mutual mistake or ambiguity.

Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court held that the written agreement executed by both parties was valid, emphasizing that the clear terms of the agreement required no interpretation and established the intent of both parties. It noted that Gurang

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.