usury cases
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
1/20
CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING
Jardenil vs. Salas This is an action for foreclosure of mortgage. Jardenil mortgage his
property to Salas.
Promissory Note of Jardenil:
debt :(P2,4000.0)
To be paid: (31) de marzo de mil novecientos treintaicuarto (1934), con
los intereses de dicha suma al tipo de doce por ciento (12%) anual a
partir desde fecha hasta el dia de su vencimiento o sea treintaiuno (31)
de marzo de mil novecientos treintaicuatro (1934), por la presente, el
Sr. Hepti Solas cede y traspasa, por via de primera hipoteca
WON defendant-appellee bound to
pay the stipulated interest only up to
the date of maturity as fixed in the
promissory note, or up to the date
payment is effected? This question is,
in our opinion controlled by the
express stipulation of the parties.
Defendant-appellee has, therefore, clearly agreed to pay interes
maturity, or until March 31, 1934. As the contract is silent as to
in the event of non-payment, the debtor would continue to pa
law, indulge in any presumption as to such interest; otherwise
upon the debtor an obligation that the parties have not chose
1755 of the Civil Code provides that "interest shall be d
been expressly stipulated."
There is nothing in the mortgage deed to show that the terms
thereto are at war with their evident intent. On the contrary thegranting to the mortgagor on the same date of execution of th
extension of one year from the date of maturity within which to
making any mention of any interest which the mortgagor
additional period (see Exhibit B attached to the complaint),
intention of the parties was that no interest should be paid du
What reason the parties may have therefore, we need not here s
aras, dissenting:
Under the facts stated in the decision of the majority, I com
interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum should be paid up
of the whole indebtedness is made. Payment of such interes
True, it is stated in the mortgage contract that interest was to
1934, but this date was inserted merely because it was th
extension note is silent as regards interest, but its payment is
nature of the transaction which is only a renewal of the oblig
ruling of the majority is anomalous and at war with commo
business usage
Cu Unjieng vs.
Mabalacat Sugar Co. Case was Instituted in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga
by Cu Unjieng e Hijos, for the purpose of recovering from the
Mabalacat Sugar Company an indebtedness amounting to
more than P163.00, with interest, and to foreclose a
mortgage given by the debtor to secure the same, as well as
to recover stipulated attorney's fee and the sum of P1,206,
paid by the plaintiff for insurance upon the mortgaged
property, with incidental relief.
In the complaint Siuliong & Co., Inc., was joined as defendant,as a surety of the Mabalacat Sugar Company, and as having a
third mortgage on the mortgaged property. The PhilippineNational Bank was also joined by reason of its interest as
second mortgagee of the land covered by the mortgage to the
WON it is correct for interest charges
be made by the plaintiff by estimating
the amount of the indebtedness?
It is well settled that, under Article 1109 of the Civil Code, as w
the Usury Law (Act No. 2655), the parties may stipulate
compounded; AND rests for the computation of compound
made monthly, as well as quarterly, semi-annually, or annuall
express stipulation for the accumulation of compound inter
collected upon interest until the debt is judicially claimed , an
interest upon accrued interest must be computed is fixed AT 6 P
In the present case, however, the language which we h
NOT JUSTIFY THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UPON INTEREST,
capital is concerned. The provision quoted merely requires th
monthly at the end of each month, such interest to be compute
loan not yet paid. Clearly this provision does not justify the
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
2/20
plaintiff.
Cu Unjieng e Hijos, agreed to extend the time for payment ofthe indebtedness until June 30, 1929, with certain interim
payments prior to the contemplated final liquidation of the
whole indebtedness. But the debtor party failed to make the
interim payments due and failed altogether to pay the balance
due, according to the terms of this extension, on June 30,
1929.
it is insisted for the appellant that this agreement for theextension of the time of payment had the effect of abrogating
the stipulation of the original contract with respect to the
acceleration of the maturity of the debt by non-compliancewith the terms of the mortgage
Under the second clause of the mortgage, interest should becalculated upon the indebtedness at the rate of 12 per cent
per annum. In the same clause, but in a separate paragraph,
there is another provision with respect to the payment of
interest expressed in Spanish. In English this provision reads
substantially as follows: "Interest, to be computed upon the
still unpaid capital of the loan, shall be paid monthly, at the
end of each month."
interest upon the interest accruing upon the capital mon
subsections (a), (b) and (c) of article IV of the mortgage, it is st
can be thus COMPUTED UPON SUMS which the creditor woul
maintain insurance upon the mortgaged property, (b) to pay the
property, and (c) upon disbursements that might be made by th
the property in good condition. BUT THE CHIEF THING IS THA
THUS ACCUMULATED ON UNPAID INTEREST ACCRUING UPO
DEBT.
The exhibit referred to is merely a receipt showing that the
March 19, 1928, paid by the debtor to the plaintiff as interest
interest is improperly charged, at an unlawful rate, the mere vothe creditor by the debtor is not binding. Such payment, in
usurious, being in excess of 12 per cent which is allowed to be
of the Usury Law, when a debt is secured by mortgage upon real
GSIS vs. Court of
Appeals
A surety agreement by which Domsat obtained a surety bond from
GSIS to secure the payment of the loan from the Banks.
Agreement: DOMSAT HOLDINGS, INC., represented by its President as
PRINCIPAL, and the GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, asAdministrator of the GENERAL INSURANCE FUND, are held and firmly
bound unto the OBLIGEES for the payment of which sum, well and truly
to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns,jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
Guarantee the repayment of the principal and interest on the loan
granted the PRINCIPAL to be used for the financing of the two (2) year
lease of a Russian Satellite from INTERSPUTNIK, in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the credit package entered into by the
parties.
This bond shall remain valid and effective until the loan including
interest has been fully paid and liquidated,
- - - - -
When Domsat failed to pay the loan, GSIS refused to comply with its
obligation reasoning that Domsat did not use the loan proceeds forthe payment of rental for the satellite. GSIS alleged that Domsat, with
Westmont Bank as the conduit, transferred the U.S. $11 Million loan
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
3/20
proceeds from the Industrial Bank of Korea to Citibank New York
account of Westmont Bank and from there to the Binondo Branch of
Westmont Bank.[5]
The Banks filed a complaint before the RTC of
Makati against Domsat and GSIS.
RTC- the Court did not find merit in the motion.
CA- declared that Domsats deposit in Westmont Bank is covered by
Republic Act No. 6426 or the Bank Secrecy Law.
Ligutan vs. CAPetitioners
Tolomeo Ligutanand
Leonidas dela Llanaobtained
on 11 May 1981 a loan in th e amount of P120, 000.00 from
respondent Security Bank and Trust Company. Petitioners executed
apromissory note binding them, jointly and severally, to pay the sum
borrowed with an interest of 15.189% per annum upon maturity and
to pay a penalty of 5% every month on the outstanding principal and
interest in case of default. In addition, petitioners agreed to pay 10%
of the total amount due by way of attorneys fees if the matter were
indorsed to a lawyer for collection or if a suit were instituted to
enforce payment. The obligation matured on 8 September 1981; the
bank, however, granted an extension but only up until 29 December
1981.
Despite several demands from the bank, petitioners failed to
settle the debt which, as of 20 May 1982, amounted to P114, 416.10.
RTC- rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendants, ordering the latter to pay, jointly and severally, to the
plaintiff
CA- appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court
except on the matter of the 2% service charge which was deleted
pursuant to Central Bank Circular No. 783. Not fully satisfied with the
decision of the appellate court, both parties filed their respective
motions for reconsideration.[4]
Petitioners prayed for the reduction of
the 5% stipulated penalty for being unconscionable.
WON the imposed interest to the
mortgage loan precludes the creditorfrom imposing a penalty stipulation?
The respondent Court of Appeals seriously erred in not ho
interest and the penalty of three (3%) percent per month or th
annum imposed by private respondent bank on petitioners
manifestly exorbitant, iniquitous and unconscionable.
Anent the stipulated interest of 15.189% per annum, petitio
question its reasonableness and prays that the Court reduce the
is a fresh issue that has not been raised and ventilated before
event, the interest stipulation, on its face, DOES NOT A
EXCESSIVE. The essence or rationale for the payment of intere
as cost of money, is not exactly the same as that of a surcharge
stipulation is not necessarily preclusive of interest, if there
effect, the two being distinct concepts which may separately be
justify a court in not allowing the creditor to impose full surcharg
an express stipulation therefor in a valid agreement, may not
payment or reduction of interest. Indeed, the interest presarrangements is a fundamental part of the banking business a
existence.
Tan vs. CA On May 14, 1978 and July 6, 1978, petitioner Antonio Tan
obtained two (2) loans each in the principal amount of TwoMillion Pesos (P2, 000,000.00), or in the total principal amount of
Four Million Pesos (P4, 000,000.00) from respondent Cultural
WON computation of the private
respondent whereby the interest,
surcharge and the principal were
added together and that on the total
We find no merit in the petitioners contention. Article 12
provides that:
In obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/189206.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/189206.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/189206.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/138677.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/138677.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/138677.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/138677.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/189206.htm#_ftn5 -
7/27/2019 usury cases
4/20
Center of the Philippines (CCP, for brevity) evidenced by two (2)
promissory notes with maturity dates on May 14, 1979 and July 6,
1979, respectively. Petitioner defaulted but after a few partial
payments he had the loans restructured by respondent CCP, and
petitioner accordingly executed a promissory note on August 31,
1979 in the amount of Three Million Four Hundred Eleven
Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-One Pesos and Thirty-Two
Centavos (P3,411,421.32) payable in five (5) instalments.
Petitioner Tan failed to pay any instalment on the saidrestructured loan.
Petitioner requested and proposed to respondent CCP a mode ofpaying the restructured loan, i.e., (a) twenty percent (20%) of the
principal amount of the loan upon the respondent giving its
conformity to his proposal; and (b) the balance on the principal
obligation payable in thirty-six (36) equal monthly instalments
until fully paid.
No favorable response was mad e to said letters. Instead,respondent CCP, through counsel, wrote a letter dated May 30,
1984 to the petitioner demanding full payment, within ten (10)
days from receipt of said letter.
RTC-rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, orderingdefendant to pay plaintiff, the amount of P7,996,314.67,
representing defendants outstanding account as of August 28,
1986, with the corresponding stipulated interest and chargesthereof, until fully paid, plus attorneys fees in an amount
equivalent to 25% of said outstanding account, plus P50,000.00,
as exemplary damages, plus costs
CA- Given the circumstances of the case, plus the fact thatplaintiff was represented by a government lawyer, We believe
the award of 25% as attorneys fees and P500,000.00 as
exemplary damages is out of proportion to the actual damage
caused by the non-performance of the contract and is excessive,
unconscionable and iniquitous.
sum interest is VALID? and the payment of interests in case of non-compliance, if there
contrary. Nevertheless, damages shall be paid if the obligor refu
is guilty of fraud in the fulfilment of the obligation.
The penalty may be enforced only when it is demandable in acco
provisions of this Code.
In the case at bar, the promissory note (Exhibit A) ex
imposition of both interest and penalties in case of defau
petitioner in the payment of the subject restructured loan. T
the promissory note (Exhibit A) imposing interest and penaltie
For value received, I/We jointly and severally promise to pay to t
OF THE PHILIPPINES at its office in Manila, the su m of THREE MI
ELEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED + PESOS (P3,411,421.32) Ph
xxx xxx
With interest at the rate of FOURTEEN per cent (14%) per annum
until paid. PLUS THREE PERCENT (3%) SERVICE CHARGE.
In case of non-payment of this note at maturity/on demand or u
of any portion of it when due, I/We jointly and severally agree to
charges at the rate of TWO per cent (2%) per month on the total
payable and computed monthly. Default of payment of this not
when due shall render all other installments and all existing prom
in favor of the CULTURAL CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES immediat
demandable. (Underscoring supplied)
xxx xxx
The stipulated fourteen percent (14%) per annum interest
of the loan constitutes the monetary interest on the note and
1956 of the New Civil Code.[7]
On the other hand, the stipulat
month penalty is in the form of penalty charge which is separa
monetary interest on the principal of the loan.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/116285.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/116285.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/116285.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/116285.htm#_edn7 -
7/27/2019 usury cases
5/20
RCBC vs. CA GOYU applied for credit facilities and accommodations with RCBC
at its Binondo Branch.
Credit facility in the amount of P30 million was initiallygranted. Upon GOYUs application and Uys and Laos
recommendation, RCBCs executive committee increased GOYUs
credit facility to P50 million, then to P90 million, and finally to
P117 million.
For its credit facilities with RCBC, GOYU executed two real estatemortgages and two chattel mortgages.
Each of these four mortgage contracts, GOYU committed itself toinsure the mortgaged property with an insurance company
approved by RCBC, and subsequently, to endorse and deliver the
insurance policies to RCBC.
On April 27, 1992, one of GOYUs factory buildings in Valenzuelawas gutted by fire. Consequently, GOYU submitted its claim for
indemnity on account of the loss insured against.
MICO denied the claim on the ground that the insurance policieswere either attached pursuant to writs of
attachments/garnishments issued by various courts or that the
insurance proceeds were also claimed by other creditors of GOYU
alleging better rights to the proceeds than the insured.
Manila RTC rendered judgment in favor of GOYU The Court of Appeals partly granted GOYUs appeal, but sustained
the findings of the trial court with respect to MICO and RCBCs
liabilities.
RCBC and MICO are now before us in G.R. No. 128833 and128866, respectively, seeking review and consequent reversal of
the above dispositions of the Court of Appeals.
Whether or not RCBC, as mortgagee,
has any right over the insurance
policies taken by GOYU, the
mortgagor, in case of the occurrence
of loss?
WON payment of interest should be
included in the insurance to be paid
by MICO?
It is to be noted that nine endorsement documents were
favor of RCBC. The Court is in a quandary how Alchester co
endorsing any specific insurance policy in favor of any particu
other than the insured had not such named payee or bene
disclosed by the insured itself. It is also significant that GOYU
took the insurance policies from MICO, a sister company of RCB
other insurance company.
The need for the payment of interest due upon the
obligation, which is the cost of money to RCBC, the primary end
for RCBCs existence and being, was duly recognized by the
favorably on RCBCs counterclaim, ordering GOYU to pay its lin the amount of P68,785,069.04, as of April 27,1992, with int
stipulated in the resp ective promissory notes (without surch
computation, pp. 14-A, 14-B, 14-C (Record, p. 479).
Regarding defendant RCBCs commitment not to charge additio
and surcharges, the same does not require that it be embodied
form of writing to be binding and enforceable. The principle is w
a verbal agreement or contract is no less binding and effective
the existence of such a verbal agreement has been amply estab
this case. In any event, regardless of the existence of such verb
still be unjust and inequitable for defendant RCBC to charge th
surcharges and penalties considering the latters pitiful situatio
The essence or rationale for the payment of interest or and distinct from that of surcharges and penalties. What m
allowing the creditor to charge surcharges and penalties de
therefor in a valid agreement, may not equally justify non-p
charging of interest for loans forms a very essential and fund
banking business, which may truly be considered to be at the
or being. It is inconceivable for a bank to grant loans for wh
interest at all. We fail to find justification for the Court of App
the payment of interest as agreed upon in the respective
constitutes gross error. There being written stipulations as to t
on each specific promissory note as summarized and tabulate
decision (pp.470 and 471, Record) such agreed interest rates
very clear from paragraph II, sub-paragraph 1 quoted above.
On the issue of payment of surcharges and penalties, we
pitiful situation must be taken into account. We do not agreeof any amount as surcharges and penalties should altog
assuming that RCBC, through its responsible officers, herein p
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
6/20
Chun Bing, may have relayed its assurance for assistance to
the occurrence of the fire, we cannot accept the lower cour
thereby ipso facto effectively waived collection of any additio
and penalties from GOYU. Assurances of assistance are o
additional interests, surcharges, and penalties is another.
Surcharges and penalties agreed to be paid by the d
partake of the nature of liquidated damages, covered by Sectio
of the Civil Code. Article 2227 thereof provides:
ART. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as a indemn
equitably reduced if they are iniquitous and unconscionable.
In exercising this vested power to determine w
unconscionable, the Court must consider the circumstances o
stressed that the Court will not make any sweeping ruling that
imposed by banks for non-payment of the loans extended
iniquitous and unconscionable. What may be iniquitous an
case, may be totally just and equitable in another. This provis
applied to the established facts of any given case. Given the cir
GOYU found itself after the occurrence of the fire, the Court r
ranging anywhere from 9% to 27%, plus the penalty charges
iniquitous and unconscionable. The Court tempers these
respectively. Furthermore, in the light of GOYUs offer
P116,301,992.60 to RCBC as March 1993 (See: Exhibit BB),
find it more in keeping with justice and equity for RCBC
interest, surcharges, and penalties from that time onward.
Given the factual milieu spread hereover, we rule that it
liable in damages for denying or withholding the proceeds o
GOYU.
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
7/20
Eastern Shipping Lines
vs. CA
This is an action against defendants shipping company, arrastreoperator and broker-forwarder for damages sustained by a
shipment while in defendants' custody, filed by the insurer-
subrogee who paid the consignee the value of such
losses/damages.
On December 4, 1981, two fiber drums of riboflavin were shippedfrom Yokohama, Japan for delivery vessel "SS EASTERN COMET"
owned by defendant Eastern Shipping Lines under Bill of Lading
No. YMA-8 (Exh. B). The shipment was insured under plaintiff'sMarine Insurance Policy No. 81/01177 for P36,382,466.38.
Upon arrival of the shipment in Manila on December 12, 1981, itwas discharged unto the custody of defendant Metro PortService, Inc. The latter excepted to one drum, said to be in bad
order, which damage was unknown to plaintiff.
On January 7, 1982 defendant Allied Brokerage Corporationreceived the shipment from defendant Metro Port Service, Inc.,
one drum opened and without seal (per "Request for Bad Order
Survey." Exh. D).
On January 8 and 14, 1982, defendant Allied BrokerageCorporation made deliveries of the shipment to the consignee's
warehouse. The latter excepted to one drum which contained
spillages, while the rest of the contents was adulterated/fake.
Whether or not the payment oflegal interest on an award for loss
or damage is to be computed
from the time the complaint is
filed or from the date the decision
appealed from is rendered?
Whether or not the applicablerate of interest, referred to
above, is twelve percent (12%) orsix percent (6%)?
Interest upon an obligation which calls for the payme
stipulation, is the legal rate. Such interest normally is allowable f
judicial or extrajudicial. The trial court opted for judicial demand
But then upon the provisions of Article 2213 of the Civil C
recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except wh
established with reasonable certainty." And as was held by this
4 L-6998, February 29, 1956, if the suit were for damages, "unl
until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the
interest "should be from the date of the decision."
By virtue of the authority granted to it under Section 1 of Act 2Board in its Resolution No. 1622 dated July 29, 1974, has prescribed tha
loan, or forbearance of any money, goods, or credits and the rate a
absence of express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be twelve
This Circular shall take effect immediately.
The ostensible discord is not difficult to explain. The factua
called for different applications, guided by the rule that the
discretion, depending on the equities of each case, on
Nonetheless, it may not be unwise, by way of clarification and
the following rules of thumb for future guidance.
I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, c
delicts or quasi-delicts 18 is breached, the contravenor can be he
The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code g
measure of recoverable damages. 20
II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in th
compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accru
follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in th
money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due s
have been stipulated in writing. 21 Furthermore, the interest
interest from the time it is judicially demanded. 22 In the absen
of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from def
extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Ar
Code.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or fo
breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
8/20
discretion of the court 24 at the rate of 6% per annum. 25 No in
adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or u
established with reasonable certainty. 26 Accordingly, where th
with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from th
judicially or extrajud icially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when suc
reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the in
only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which
damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained)
computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amoun
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of m
executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case fallparagraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality
interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a for
WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. The appeal
with the MODIFICATION that the legal interest to be paid is S
amount due computed from the decision, dated
03 February 1988, of the court a quo. A TWELVE PERCENT
SIX PERCENT (6%), shall be imposed on such amount upon fina
the payment thereof
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
9/20
First Fil-Sin Lending
Corp. vs. PadilloOn July 22, 1997, respondent Gloria D. Padillo obtained a
P500,000.00 loan from petitioner First Fil-Sin Lending Corp. On
September 7, 1997, respondent obtained another P500,000.00 loan
from petitioner. In both instances, respondent executed a promissory
note and disclosure statement.[2]
For the first loan, respondent made 13 monthly interest
payments of P22,500.00 each before she settled the P500,000.00
outstanding principal obligation on February 2, 1999. As regards the
second loan, respondent made 11 monthly interest payments of
P25,000.00 each before paying the principal loan of P500,000.00 on
February 2, 1999.[3]
In sum, respondent paid a total of P792,500.00 forthe first loan and P775,000.00 for the second loan.
On January 27, 2000, respondent filed an action for sum of money
against herein petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
Alleging that she only agreed to pay interest at the rates of 4.5% and
5% per annum, respectively, for the two loans, and not 4.5% and 5%
per month, respondent sought to recover the amounts she allegedly
paid in excess of her actual obligations.
trial court dismissed respondents complaint, and on the
counterclaim, ordered her to pay petitioner P311,125.00 with legal
interest from February 3, 1999 until fully paid plus 10% of the amount
due as attorneys fees and costs of the suit.[5]
The trial court ruled that
by issuing checks representing interest payments at 4.5% and 5%
monthly interest rates, respondent is now estopped from questioningthe provisions of the promissory notes.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the
decision of the court a quo (1) ordering First Fil-Sin Lending
Corporation to return the amount of P114,000.00 to Gloria D. Padillo,
and (2) deleting the award of attorneys fees in favor of appellee. Other
claims and counterclaims are dismissed for lack of sufficient causes.
No pronouncement as to cost.
WON THE APPLICABLE
INTEREST SHOULD BE THE
LEGAL INTEREST OF TWELVE
PER CENT (12%) PER ANNUM
DESPITE THE CLEAR
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
ON ANOTHER APPLICABLE
RATE.
We agree with respondent.
Perusal of the promissory notes and the disclosure statem
22, 1997 and September 7, 1997 loan obligations of
unambiguously provide for interest rates of 4.5% per annu
respectively. Nowhere was it stated that the interest rates shal
basis.
Thus, when the terms of the agreement are clear and e
justify an at tempt to read into it any alleged intention of the pa
understood literally just as they appear on the face of the
instances when the language of a contract is ambiguous or obsc
apply certain established rules of construction in order to ascer
of the parties. However, these rules will not be used to mak
parties or to rewrite the old one , even if the contract is inequ
applied by the court merely to resolve doubts and ambiguities
the agreement.[9]
The lower court and the CA mistook the Loan Transac
Disclosure Statement. The former was prepared exclusively
summarizes the payments made by respondent and the incom
There was no mention of any interest rates and having been
petitioner, the same is self serving. On the contrary, the Dis
signed by both parties and categorically stated that interest ra
annually, not monthly.
As such, since the terms and conditions contained in th
disclosure statements are clear and unambiguous, the same meffect. The expressed intention of the parties as laid down
controls.
Also, reformation cannot be resorted to as the document
on the ground of mutual mistake. When a party sues on a
attempt is made to show any vice therein, he cannot be allow
than what its clear stipulations accord. His omission cannot be
courts by what their own notions of justice or equity may dictate
Notably, petitioner even admitted that it was sole
preparation of the loan documents, and that it failed to cor
p.a. to per month.[11]
Since the mistake is exclusively attr
same should be charged against it. This unilateral mistake
respondent who merely affixed her signature on the pro for
between two parties to a written agreement, the party who gaerror in the provisions of the same is estopped from asserting a
contained therein. The checks issued by respondent do not
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jan2005/160533.htm#_ftn2 -
7/27/2019 usury cases
10/20
prove that the real intent of the parties is to apply the interest r
Absent any proof of vice of consent, the promissory notes an
remain the best evidence to ascertain the real intent of the partie
The same promissory note provides that x x x any and all r
the principal upon maturity hereof shall earn interest at the rat
maturity until fully paid. The CA thus properly imposed the
annum from the time the loans matured until the same has been
1999. As decreed in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appe
stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be co
interest rates on the July 22, 1997 and September 7,
respondent Gloria D. Padillo from petitioner First Fil-Sin Lendingand computed on a per annum basis, and upon their respectiv
rate of 12% per annum shall be imposed until full payment. In
the rate of 12% per annum shall be imposed on the outstanding
default until full payment
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
11/20
Integrated Realty
Corp. vs. PNB Raul L. Santos made a time deposit with Overseas Bank of the
Philippines in the amount of P500,000.00.Santos also made a
time deposit with OBM in the amount of P200,000.00. Integrated
Realty Corporation, thru itsPresident ---- Raul L. Santos, applied
for a loan and/or credit line in the amount of P700,000.00 with
PNB. To secure the said loan, Santos executed a Deed of
Assignment of the two time deposits in favor of plaintiff. OBM
gave its conformity to the assignment. However, OBM, after the
due dates of the time deposit certificates, did not pay PNB. PNB
demanded payment from IRC and Santos and OBM. IRC and
Santos replied that the obligation (loan) of defendant IRC was
deemed paid with the irrevocable assignment of the time deposit
certificates.- On April 6, 1969, PNB filed a complaint to collect
from IRC and Santos the loan of P700,000.00 with interest as well
as attorney's fees. In its answer to the complaint, OBM denied
knowledge of the time deposit certificates because the alleged
time deposit of Santos 'does not appear' in its books of account.
The trial court ordered IRC and Santos to pay the plaintiff jointly
and solidarily, the total amount of P700,000 plus interest. OBM
was also ordered to pay cross IRC and Santos whatever amount
the latter will pay to PNB. The CA affirmed but deleted the
portion of the judgment ordering OBM to pay IRC and Santos
whatever amounts they will pay to PNB with interest from the
date of payment.
WON the 1-1/2% interestimposed by PNB was illegal?
WON OBM should be heldliable for interests on the
time deposits of IRC and
Santos from the time it
ceased operations until it
resumed its business?
Held: No
Ratio: - We find nothing illegal in the interest of one and o
imposed by PNB pursuant to the resolution of its Board which
accordance with ordinary banking procedures. Not only did
overcome the presumption of regularity of business transactio
estopped from questioning the validity thereof for the first time
nothing in the records to show that they raised this issue durin
countervailing evidence. What was merely touched upon durin
court below was the alleged lack of notice to them of the boar
veracity or validity thereof.
Held: No
Ratio: - It is a matter of common knowledge, that wha
stipulated interest on money deposited with it is that thru
operation it is able to generate funds to cover the payment o
bank can lend money, engage in international transactions, acqu
properties or their proceeds and generally engage in othe
activities from which it can derive income, it is inconceivable
depository obligated to pay stipulated interest. Convention
inexorable fair and just conclusion. And it can be said that all wh
are aware of such a simple economic proposition. Consequen
read into every contract of deposit with a bank that the obligati
deposit ceases the moment the operation of the bank is comp
duly constituted authority, the Central Bank.
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
12/20
Bataan Seedling
Assoc. Vs. RepublicPetitioner entered into a contract with respondent, represented by
the DENR for the reforestation of a forest land within a period of 3
years. Petitioner undertook to report to DENR any event or condition
which delays or may delay the project. With the contract was the
release of mobilization fund but the fund was to be returned upon
completion or deducted from periodic release of mhoneys to
petitioner. Believing that petitioners failed to comply with their
obligations, respondent sent a notice of cancellation. Petitioners
failed to respond to the notice, thus, respondent filed a complaint for
damages against petitioners. The RTC held that respondent had
sufficient grounds to cancel the contract but saw no reason why the
mobilization fund and the cash advances should be refunded or thatpetitioners are liable for liquidated damages. Both parties appealed to
the CA, which affirmed the trial court and that the balnce of the fund
should be returned with 12% interest.
Whether the order to refund the
balance of the fund with 12% interest
pa is proper.
No. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum is impossible if
the contract. Herein subject contract does not contain any st
However, the amount due to respondent does not represent a
money. The word forbearance is defined, within, the con
contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain, during gi
requiring borrower or debtor to repay loan or debt then due an
of stipulation, the legal interest is 6% pa on the amount finally ad
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
13/20
Catungal vs. HaoOn December 28, 1972, the original owner, Aniana Galang, leased
a three-storey building situated at Quirino Avenue, Baclaran,
Paraaque, Metro Manila, to the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for
a period of about fifteen (15) years, to expire on June 20, 1986. Du ring
the existence of the lease, BPI subleased the ground floor of said
building to respondent Doris Hao.
On August 24, 1984, Galang and respondent executed a contract
of lease on the second and third floors of the building. The lease was
for a term of four (4) years commencing on August 15, 1984 and
ending on August 15, 1988. On August 15, 1986, petitioner spouses
Ernesto and Mina Catungal bought the property from Aniana Galang.
Invoking her right of first refusal purportedly based on the lease
contract between her and Aniana Galang, respondent filed a complaint
for Annulment of Sale with Damages docketed as Civil Case No. 88-491
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Metro Manila.
Meanwhile, the lease agreement between BPI and Galang
expired.
Upon expiration of the lease agreements, petitioner spouses sent
demand letters to respondent for her to vacate the building. The
demand letters were unheeded by respondent causing petitioners to
file two complaints for ejectment, docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 7666
and 7667 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Paraaque, Metro
Manila.
The institution of the ejectment cases prompted respondent to
file an action for injunction
RTC of Makati- granting the injunction and annulling the contract
of sale between Aniana Galang and petitioners.
Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC
and the complaints in Civil Cases Nos. 88-491 and 90-758 were
accordingly dismissed.
The RTC rightly modified the rental award from P13
considering that it is settled jurisprudence that courts may ta
general increase in rentals of lease contract renewals mu
establishments. Thus, We held in Manila Bay Club Corporation v
It is worth stressing at this juncture that the trial court had the au
reasonable value for the continued use and occupancy of the lea
termination of the lease contract, and that it was not bound by t
the contract of lease since it is equally settled that upon terminat
contract of lease, the rental stipulated therein may no longer be
the use and occupation of the premises as a result or by reason o
values. Moreover, the trial court can take judicial notice of the
rentals of real estate especially of business establishments like th
by the private respondent.[19]
The increased award of rentals ruled by the RTC is
circumstances of the case at bench. We note that respon
petitioners the benefits, including possession, of their rightful ow
property for almost a decade.
The Court also awards interest in favor of petitioners. I n E
vs. Court of Appeals, we gave the following guidelines in the awa
xxx
II With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concep
compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accr
as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payme
i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be t
been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall it
from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipula
shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from
demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of th
The back rentals in this case being equivalent to a loan o
the interest due thereon in twelve percent (12%) per annum
judicial demand on September 27, 1988.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/134972.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/134972.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/134972.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/134972.htm#_edn19 -
7/27/2019 usury cases
14/20
Banco Filipino vs. CA Elsa Arcilla and her husband, Calvin Arcilla secured on three
occasions, loans from the Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage
bank in the amount of Php.107,946.00 as evidenced by the
Promissory Note executed by the spouses in favor of the said
bank. To secure payment of said loans, the spouses executed
Real Estate Mortgages in favor of the appellants (Banco
Filipino) over their parcels of land. The appellee spouses failed to
pay their monthly amortization to appellant. On September 2,
1985 the appellees filed a complaint for Annulment of the Loan
Contracts, Foreclosure Sale with Prohibitory and Injunction
which was granted by the RTC. Petitioners appealed to the Court
of Appeals, but the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Whether or not the CA erred when it
held that the cause of action of the
private respondents accrued on
October 30, 1978 and the filing of
their complaint for annulment of their
contracts in 1085 was not yet barred
by the prescription
The court held that the petition is unmeritorious. Petition
of the private respondents have prescribed is bereft of merit. U
Civil Code, the time for prescription of all kinds of action w
provision which ordains otherwise shall be counted from the d
Thus the period of prescription of any cause of action is reckon
the cause of action accrued. The period should not be made to re
execution of the contract, but from the date they received t
showing the increased rate of interest, for it was only from
discovered the petitioners unilateral increase thereof
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
15/20
Consolidated Bank vs.
CA
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
16/20
Mendoza vs. CAPetitioner was granted by respondent PNB a credit line for 500H and
1M for LoC/TR line. As security, the former mortgaged properties. The
REM provided for an escalation clause that rate of interest charged on
the obligation secured shall be subject to such increase, during the life
of the contract, within the rates allowed by law. Two PNs were
executed for the credit line and stipulated therein : with interest
thereon at the rate of 12% pa, until paid, with interest rate the Bank
may, at any tie, without notice, raise within the limits allowed by law
xxx. Thereafter, PNB advised Mendoza that the bank raised its
interest rates to 14% pa, in ine with CBMB Reso No 2126. Petitioner
failed to payand requested for restructuring of loans. Two promissory
notes were signed by Mendoza and his wife. Petitioner testified thatrespondent allegedly inserted in first promissory note No. 127/82 an
interest rate of 21% instead of 18% covering the principal amount,and
on the second promissory note 128/82 the interest of 18% instead of
12% representing accrued interest.
Whether or not the interests provided
by respondent is proper?No. it appears that respondent bank increased the i
promissory notes without prior consent of the petitioner. The p
the increase in the stipulated interest. As held in sever
determination and imposition of increased interest rates by res
of the principle of mutuality of contracts ordained in Art. 1308 of
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
17/20
First Metro
Investments Corp. vs.FMIC granted Este del Sol a loan to finance a sports/resort complex in
Montalban, Rizal. Under the agreement, the interest was 16% pa
based on the diminishing balance. In case of default, an acceleration
clause was provided and the amount due is subject to 20% one-time
penalty on the amount due and such amount shall bear interest at the
highest rate permitted by law. respondent executed a REM, individual
continuing suretyship and an underwriting agreement whereby FMIC
shall underwrite the public offering of one P120,000 common shares
of respondents capital stock for one-time underwriting fee of
P200,000. For failure to pay its obligation, FMIC caused the
foreclosure of the REM. At the public auction, FIC was the highest
bidder. Petitioner filed to collect for alleged deficiency balance againstrespondents since it failed to collect from the sureties, plus interest at
21% pa. the trial court ruled in favor of FMIC. Respondents appealed
before the CA which held that the fees provided for in the
Underwriting and Consultacy Agreements were mere subterfuges to
camouflage the excessively usurious interest charged. The CA ordered
FMIC to reimburse petitioner representing what is ue to petitioner
and what is due to respondent.
Whether or not the interests are
lawful?No. an apparently lawful loan is usurious when it is i
compensation for the loan be disguised by an ostensibly un
payment by the borrower for the lenders services which re o
not in fact to be rendered. Article 1957 clearly provides: contrac
any cloak or device whatever, intended to circumvent the law a
The borrower may recover in accordance with the laws on usury
-
7/27/2019 usury cases
18/20
Frias vs. San Diego-
SisonPetitioner is the owner of a house and lot located at No. 589 Batangas
East, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. Frias as First party
and Dra. San Diego-Sison as Second Party.
The parties agreed for and in consideration of the sum of THREE
MILLION PESOS (P3,000,000.00) That the SECOND PARTY has a period
of Six (6) months from the date of the execution of this contract
within which to notify the FIRST PARTY of her intention to purchase
the aforementioned parcel of land together within the improvements
thereon at the price of SIX MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P6,400,000.00). Upon notice to the FIRST PARTY of the intention to
purchase the same, the 2nd party has a period of another six monthswithin which to pay the remaining balance of P3.4 million.
That prior to the six months period given to the SECOND PARTY within
which to decide whether or not to purchase the above-mentioned
property, the FIRST PARTY may still offer the said property to other
persons who may be interested to buy the same provided that the
amount of P3,000,000.00 given to the FIRST PARTY BY THE SECOND
PARTY shall be paid to the latter including interest based on prevailing
compounded bank interest plus the amount of the sale in excess
of P7,000,000.00should the property be sold at a price more than P7
million.
IfFIRST PARTY has no other buyer within the first six months from the
execution, no interest shall be charged by the SECOND PARTY on theP3 million however, in the event that on the sixth month the SECOND
PARTY would decide not to purchase , the FIRST PARTY has a period of
another six months within which to pay the sum of P3 million pesos
provided that the said amount shall earn compounded bank interest
for the last six months only. Under this circumstance, the amount of P3
million given by the SECOND PARTY shall be treated as [a] loan and
the property shall be considered as the security for the mortgage.
Respondent decided not to purchase the property and notified
petitioner through a letter, reminding petitioner of their agreement
that the amount of two million pesos which petitioner received from
respondent should be considered as a loan payable within six months.
Petitioner subsequently failed to pay respondent the amount of two
million pesos.
While the CAs conclusion, that a loan always bears interest othe
flawed since a simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation
find no error committed by the CA in awarding a 25% interest pe
million peso loan even beyond the second six months stipulated
is that if the terms of an agreement are clear and leave no doubt
the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations sha
required that the various stipulations of a contract shall be inter
attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from
jointly. In this case, the p hrase "for the last six months only" sho
context of the entire agreement. We agree with and adopt the C
phrase in this wise:
Their agreement speaks of two (2) periods of six months each. Th
was given to plaintiff-appellee (respondent) to make up her mind
purchase defendant-appellants (petitioner's) property. The seco
given to defendant-appellant to pay the P2 million loan in the ev
appellee decided not to buy the subject property in which case i
"for the last six months only", referring to the second six-month
no interest will be charged for the first six-month period while ap
her mind whether to buy the property, but only for the second p
appellee had decided not to buy the property. This is the meanin
last six months only". Certainly, there is nothing in their agreeme
interest will be charged for six months only even if it takes defen
eternity to pay the loan.27
The agreement that the amount given shall bear compounded b
six months only, i.e., referring to the second six-month period, dointerest will no longer be charged after the second six-month per
stipulation was made on the logical and reasonable expectation
be paid within the date stipulated. Considering that petitioner fa
given which under the Memorandum of Agreement shall be con
monetary interest for the last six months continued to accrue un
loaned amount. It has been held that for a debtor to continue in
principal of the loan and to continue to use the same after matur
payment of the monetary interest, would constitute unjust enric
debtor at the expense of the creditor .29
Petitioner and responden
loaned amount shall earn compounded bank interests, and per t
Prudential Bank, the interest rate for loans in 1991 ranged from 2
The CA reduced the interest rate to 25% instead of the 32% awar
which petitioner no longer assailed.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_155223_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_155223_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_155223_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_155223_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_155223_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_155223_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_155223_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_155223_2007.html#fnt27 -
7/27/2019 usury cases
19/20
Siga-an vs. Villanueva On 31 August 1993, respondent issued a check worth P500,000.00 to
petitioner as partial payment of the loan. On 31 October 1993, she
issued another check in the amount of P200,000.00 to petitioner as
payment of the remaining balance of the loan. Petitioner told her that
since she paid a total amount of P700,000.00 for theP540,000.00 worth
of loan, the excess amount of P160,000.00 would be applied as interest
for the loan. Not satisfied with the amount applied as interest,
petitioner pestered her to pay additional interest. Petitioner
threatened to block or disapprove her transactions with the PNO if she
would not comply with his demand. As all her transactions with the
PNO were subject to the approval of petitioner as comptroller of the
PNO, and fearing that petitioner might block or unduly influence the
payment of her vouchers in the PNO, she conceded. Thus, she paid
additional amounts in cash and checks as interests for the loan. She
asked petitioner for receipt for the payments but petitioner told her
that it was not necessary as there was mutual trust and confidence
between them. According to her computation, the total amount she
paid to petitioner for the loan and interest accumulated
to P1,200,000.00.7
Thereafter, respondent consulted a lawyer regarding the propriety of
paying interest on the loan despite absence of agreement to that
effect. Her lawyer told her that petitioner could not validly collect
interest on the loan because there was no agreement between her
and petitioner regarding payment of interest. Since she paid
petitioner a total amount of P1,200,000.00 for the P540,000.00 worth
of loan, and upon being advised by her lawyer that she madeoverpayment to petitioner, she sent a demand letter to petitioner
asking for the return of the excess amount of P660,000.00. Petitioner,
despite receipt of the demand letter, ignored her claim for
reimbursement
RTC rendered a Decision on 26 January 2001 holding that respondent
made an overpayment of her loan obligation to petitioner and that
the latter should refund the excess amount to the former
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 16 December 2005,
the appellate court promulgated its Decision affirming in toto the RTC
Decision
Whether or not THE RTC AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING
THAT NO INTEREST WAS DUE TO
PETITIONER?
Interest is a compensation fixed by the parties for the use o
This is referred to as monetary interest. Interest may also be imp
as penalty or indemnity for damages. This is called compensato
interest arises only by virtue of a contract or by virtue of damag
pay the principal loan on which interest is demanded.
It appears that petitioner and respondent did not agree on the
the loan. Neither was there convincing proof of written agree
regarding the payment of interest. Respondent testified that
petitioners offer of loan amounting to P540,000.00, there was,
written agreement for her to pay interest on the loan.
respondents alleged admission in the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 con the payment of interest at the rate of 7% deserves scant c
case, respondent merely testified that after paying the total am
ordered her to pay interest.28
Respondent did not categorically
that she and respondent made an express stipulation in writin
interest at the rate of 7%. As earlier discussed, monetary intere
an express stipulation in writing for the payment of interest.
There are instances in which an interest may be imposed even
stipulation, verbal or written, regarding payment of interest.
Code states that if the obligation consists in the payment of a
debtor incurs delay, a legal interest of 12% per annum may be
damages if no stipulation on the payment of interest was agree
2212 of the Civil Code provides that interest due shall earn lega
is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent on
All the same, the interest under these two instances may be imp
damages for breach of contractual obligations. It cannot be ch
for the use or forbearance of money. In other words, the two
compensatory interest and not to monetary interest.29
Th
petitioners claim for monetary interest.
Further, said compensatory interest is not chargeable in the ins
not duly proven that respondent defaulted in paying the loan. A
interest was due on the loan because there was no writte
payment of interest.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_173227_2009.html#rnt7 -
7/27/2019 usury cases
20/20
Carpo vs. Chua