torts medel and solangon

7/26/2019 Torts Medel and Solangon

1/12

G.R. No. 131622. November 27, 1998]

LETICIA Y. MEDEL DR. RAFAEL MEDEL a! "ER#AND$

FRANC$,petitioners, vs. C$%RT $F A&&EAL", "&$%"E"

#ER$NICA R. G$N'ALE" a! DANIL$ G. G$N'ALE", (R., !o)*

+e!)* b-)e-- !er /e ra!e ame a! -0+e G$N'ALE"

CREDIT ENTER&RI"E", respondents.

D E C I " I $ N

&ARD$,J.:

The case before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari, under Rule 45 of the

Revised Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, [1]and itsresolution dening reconsideration,[!]the dispositive portion of which decision reads as follows"

#$%&R&'(R&, the appealed )udg*ent is hereb +(-'-&

such that defendants are hereb ordered to pa the plaintiff" the su*

of .5//,///0//, plus 505 per *onth interest and ! service charge

per annu* effective 2ul !3, 16, plus 1 per *onth of the total

a*ount due and de*andable as penalt charges effective August !3,

16, until the entire a*ount is full paid0

#The award to the plaintiff of .5/,///0// as attorne7s fees is

affir*ed0 And so is the i*position of costs against the defendants0

8( (R&R&0#[3]

The Court re9uired the respondents to co**ent on the petition,[4]which was filed on April 3,

1,[5]and the petitioners to repl thereto, which was filed on +a !, 10 [6]$e now resolve

to give due course to the petition and decide the case0

The facts of the case, as found b the Court of Appeals in its decision, which are considered

binding and conclusive on the parties herein, as the appeal is li*ited to 9uestions of law, are as

follows"

(n :ove*ber ;, 15, 8ervando 'ranco and , who was engaged in the *one

lending business under the na*e #@onales Credit &nterprises#, in the a*ount of .5/,///0//,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/nov1998/131622.htm#_edn1


2/12

paable in two *onths0 ?eronica gave onl the a*ount of .4;,///0//, to the borrowers, as she

retained .3,///0//, as advance interest for one *onth at 6 per *onth0 8ervado and


3/12

#.a*ent will be *ade in full at the *aturit date0

#8hould -F$& fail to pa an a*ortiation or portion hereof when due, all the

other install*ents together with all interest accrued shall i**ediatel be due

and paable and -F$& hereb agree to paan additional a*ount e9uivalent to one per cent =1> per *onth of the a*ount

due and de*andable as penalt charges in the for* of li9uidated da*ages unti

l full paidH and the

further su* ofT$&:T '-?& .&R C&:T =!5> thereon in full, without

deductions as Attorne7s 'ee whether actuall incurred or not, of the total

a*ount due and de*andable, eBclusive of costs and )udicial or eBtra )udicial

eBpenses0 =Enderscoring supplied>

#-, $& further agree that in the event the present rate of interest on loan isincreased b law or the Central Dank of the .hilippines, the holder shall have

the option to appl and collect the increased interest charges without notice

although the original interest have alread been collected wholl or partiall

unless the contrar is re9uired b law0

#-t is also a special condition of this contract that the parties herein agree that

the a*ount of pesoIobligation under this agree*ent is based on the present

value of peso, and if there be an change in the value thereof, due to

eBtraordinar inflation or deflation, or an other cause or reason, then thepesoIobligation herein contracted shall be ad)usted in accordance with the

value of the peso then prevailing at the ti*e of the co*plete fulfill*ent of

obligation0

#e*and and notice of dishonor waived0 %older *a accept partial pa*ents

and grant renewals of this note or eBtension of pa*ents, reserving rights

against each and all indorsers and all parties to this note0

#-: CA8& (' 2E-C-A< &Becution of this obligation, or an part of it, thedebtors waive all hisFtheir rights under the provisions of 8ection 1!, Rule 3,

of the Revised Rules of Court0#

(n *aturit of the loan, the borrowers failed to pa the indebtedness of .5//,///0//, plus

interests and penalties, evidenced b the aboveI9uoted pro*issor note0


4/12

(n 'ebruar !/, 1/, ?eronica R0 @onales, )oined b her husband anilo @0 @onales,

filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dulacan, Dranch 16, at +alolos, Dulacan, a co*plaint for

collection of the full a*ount of the loan including interests and other charges0

-n his answer to the co*plaint filed with the trial court on April 5, 1/, defendant 8ervando

alleged that he did not obtain an loan fro* the plaintiffsH that it was defendants


5/12

#30 (rdering the defendants to pa the plaintiffs, )ointl and severall, the a*ount

of .!5,///0// plus 1! interest per annu* and 1 per *onth as penalt fro* 2ul

11, 16, until the whole a*ount is full paidH

#40 (rdering the defendants to pa plaintiffs, )ointl and severall, the a*ountof .5/,///0// as attorne7s feesH

#50 All counterclai*s are hereb dis*issed0

#$ith costs against the defendants0# []

-n due ti*e, both plaintiffs and defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals0

-n their appeal, plaintiffsIappellants argued that the pro*issor note, which consolidated all

the unpaid loans of the defendants, is the law that governs the parties0 The further argued thatCircular :o0 416 of the Central Dank prescribing the rate of interest for loans or forbearance of

*one, goods or credit at 1! per annu*, applies onl in the absence of a stipulation on interest

rate, but not when the parties agreed thereon0

The Court of Appeals sustained the plaintiffsIappellants7 contention0 -t ruled that #the Esur


6/12

(n April 15, 1;, defendantsIappellants filed a *otion for reconsideration of the said

decision0 D resolution dated :ove*ber !5, 1;, the Court of Appeals denied the *otion0[1!]

%ence, defendants interposed the present recourse viapetition for review on certiorari0[13]

$e find the petition *eritorious0

Dasicall, the issue revolves on the validit of the interest rate stipulated upon0 Thus, the

9uestion presented is whether or not the stipulated rate of interest at 505 per *onth on the loan

in the su* of.5//,///0//, that plaintiffs eBtended to the defendants is usurious0 -n other words,

is the Esur


7/12

, 11, of the Regional Trial Court of Dulacan, Dranch 16, +alolos, Dulacan, in Civil Case :o0

134I+I/, involving the sa*e parties0

:o pronounce*ent as to costs in this instance

"$ $RDERED.

Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Romero, Kapunan, andPurisima, JJ., concur.


8/12

4G.R. No. 1259. (e 29, 21]

"&$%"E" DANIL$ "$LANG$N a! %R"%LA "$LANG$N,petitioners,

vs. ($"E A#ELIN$ "ALA'AR, respondent.

D E C I " I $ N

"AND$#ALG%TIERRE',J.

.etition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1; Rules of Civil .rocedure, as

a*ended, of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CAI@0R0 C? :o0 3;, affir*ing the

decision of the Regional Trial Court, Dranch 16, +alolos, Dulacan, in Civil Case :o0 3;5I+I1,

8pouses anilo and Ersula 8olangon vs0 2ose Avelino 8alaar for annul*ent of *ortgage0 The

dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads"

$%&R&'(R&, )udg*ent is hereb rendered against the plaintiffs in favor of the

defendant 8alaar, as follows"

10 (rdering the dis*issal of the co*plaintH

!0 (rdering the dissolution of the preli*inar in)unction issued on 2ul , 11H

30 (rdering the plaintiffs to pa the defendant the a*ount of .1/,///0// b wa of attornes

feesH and

40 To pa the costs0

8( (R&R&0[1]

The facts as su**aried b the Court of Appeals in its decision being challenged are"

(n August !!, 16, the plaintiffsIappellants eBecuted a deed or real estate *ortgage

in which the *ortgaged a parcel of land situated in 8ta0 +aria, Dulacan, in favor

of the defendantIappellee, to secure pa*ent of a loan of .6/,///0// paable within a

period of four =4> *onths, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per *onth =&Bh0 D>0

(n +a !;, 1;, the plaintiffsIappellants eBecuted a deed of real estate *ortgage in

which the *ortgaged the sa*e parcel of land to the defendantIappellee, to secure

pa*ent of a loan of .136,51!0//, paable within a period of one =1> ear, with

interest thereon at the legal rate =&Bh0 1>0
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/125944.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/125944.htm#_edn1


9/12

(n ece*ber !, 1/, the plaintiffsIappellants eBecuted a deed of real estate

*ortgage in which the *ortgaged the sa*e parcel of land in favor of defendantI

appellee, to secure pa*ent of a loan in the a*ount of .!3/,///0// paable within a

period of four =4> *onths, with interest thereon at the legal rate =&Bh0 !, &Bh0 C>0

This action was initiated b the plaintiffsIappellants to prevent the foreclosure of the

*ortgaged propert0 The alleged that the obtained onl one loan for* the

defendantIappellee, and that was for the a*ount of .6/,///0//, the pa*ent of which

was secured b the first of the aboveI*entioned *ortgages0 The subse9uent

*ortgages were *erel continuations of the first one, which is null and void because

it provided for unconscionable rate of interest0 +oreover, the defendantIappellee

assured the* that he will not foreclose the *ortgage as long as the pa the stipulated

interest upon *aturit or within a reasonable ti*e thereafter0 The have alread paid

the defendantIappellee .;,///0// and tendered .4;,///0// *ore, but the latter hasinitiated foreclosure proceedings for their alleged failure to pa the loan .!3/,///0//

plus interest0

(n the other hand, the defendantIappellee 2ose Avelino 8alaar clai*ed that the

aboveIdescribed *ortgages were eBecuted to secure three separate loans of

.6/,///0// .136,51!0// and .!3/,///0//, and that the first two loans were paid, but

the last one was not0 %e denied having represented that he will not foreclose the

*ortgage as long as the plaintiffsIappellants pa interest0

-n their petition, spouses anilo and Ersula 8olangon ascribe to the Court of Appeals the

following errors"

10 The Court of Appeals erred in holding that three =3> *ortgage contracts were

eBecuted b the parties instead of one =1>H

!0 The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a loan obligation secured b a real estate

*ortgage with an interest of ;! per cent per annu* or 6 per *onth is not

unconscionableH

40 The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the loan of .136,51!0// %A8 :(T

D&&: .A- when the *ortgagee hi*self states in his A:8$&R that the sa*e was

alread paidH and


10/12

50 The Court of Appeals erred in not resolving the 8.&C-'-C -88E&8 raised b the

appellants0

-n his co**ent, respondent 2ose Avelino 8alaar avers that the petition should not be given

due course as it raises 9uestions of facts which are not allowed in a petition for review on

certiorari0

$e find no *erit in the instant petition0

The core of the present controvers is the validit of the third contract of *ortgage which

was foreclosed0

.etitioners contend that the obtained fro* respondent Avelino 8alaar onl one =1> loan in

the a*ount of .6/,///0// secured b the first *ortgage of August 160 According to the*, the

signed the third *ortgage contract in view of respondents assurance that the sa*e will not be

foreclosed0 The trial court, which is in the best position to evaluate the evidence presented before

it, did not give credence to petitioners corroborated testi*on and ruled"

The testi*on is i*probable0 The real estate *ortgage was signed not onl b Ersula

8olangon but also b her husband including the .ro*issor :ote appended to

it0 8igning a docu*ent without knowing its contents is contrar to co**on

eBperience0 The uncorroborated testi*on of Ersula 8olangon cannot be given

weight0[!]

.etitioners likewise insist that, contrar to the finding of the Court of appeals, the had paid

the a*ount of .136,51!0//, or the second loan0 -n fact, such pa*ent was confir*ed b

respondent 8alaar in his answer to their co*plaint0

-t is readil apparent that petitioners are raising issues of fact in this petition0 -n a petition for

review under Rule 45 of the 1; Rules of Civil .rocedure, as a*ended, onl 9uestions of law

*a be raised and the *ust be distinctl set forth0 The settled rule is that findings of fact of the

lower courts =including the Court of Appeals> are final and conclusive and will not be reviewed

on appeal eBcept" =1> when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirel on speculation,

sur*ises or con)ecturesH =!> when the inference *ade is *anifestl *istaken, absurd or

i*possibleH =3> when there is grave abuse of discretionH =4> when the )udg*ent is based on a

*isapprehension of factsH =5> when the findings of facts are conflictingH =6> when the Court of

Appeals, in *aking its findings, went beond the issues of the case and such findings are

contrar to the ad*ission of both appellant and appelleeH =6> when the findings of the Court of

Appeals are contrar to those of the trial courtH and =;> when the findings of fact are conclusions

without citation of specific evidence on which the are based0[3]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/125944.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/125944.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/125944.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/125944.htm#_edn3


11/12

:one of these instances are eBtant in the present case0

.arentheticall, petitioners are 9uestioning the rate of interest involved here0 The *aintain

that the Court of Appeals erredin decreeing that the stipulated interest rate of ;! per annu* or

6 per *onth is not unconscionable0

The Court of Appeals, in sustaining the stipulated interest rate, ratiocinated that since the

Esur


12/12

?o-?)oab+e, a! /e?e, ?orar0 o mora+- ?ora boo- more-B, )= o

a*a)- /e +a;. T/e -)

torts medel and solangon

Documents