Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > September 1924 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21995 September 29, 1924 - ISIDRO S. VILLARUEL v. ALBINA ALVAYDA, ET AL.

046 Phil 277:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-21995. September 29, 1924. ]

ISIDRO S. VILLARUEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALBINA ALVAYDA and her husband, BUENAVENTURA VICENCIO, Defendants-Appellants.

Ampig & Villa and Francisco & Lualhati for Appellants.

F. Fernandez Yanzon for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. LOAN; INTEREST UPON INTEREST DUE; USURY. — The contracting parties may stipulate that the interest due upon the loan shall constitute a new principal debt from the time it becomes due, in which case the interest upon said interest due must not be considered as earned by the original debt. (Government of the Philippine Islands v. Schenkel and Gonzales, 43 Phil., 616.)


D E C I S I O N


VILLAMOR, J. :


The complaint is upon two causes of action. The first is for the collection of a mortgage credit of P46,000, plus P2,500 for expenses of litigation and attorney’s fees; and the second, for the recovery of the sum of P500, alleged to have been borrowed by the defendants from Messrs. Ledesma Brothers for the account of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff prays that judgment be rendered against the defendants:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) For the payment of their mortgage debt with interest thereon, after deducting the P1,000 paid on July 30, 1921, and the P3,501.83 paid on the 29th day of August, 1922.

(b) For the payment of the P2,500 fixed for expenses of litigation and attorney’s fees, and the sum of P500 alleged in paragraph VI of the complaint, and the costs of the action.

(c) Ordering the sale of the property mortgaged, with the improvements thereon, should the amount of the judgment not be satisfied within the period prescribed by the law, the proceeds of the sale to be applied upon the payment of the amounts claimed, with interest thereon and the costs.

(d) Directing the defendants, in the event that the proceeds of said sale are not sufficient to cover the amounts claimed in the complaint, to pay the plaintiff such balance as, according to the record, they may be personally liable for.

The defendants admit the execution of the deeds of mortgage Exhibits A and B, as well as the payments made on account of the debt, namely, P1,000 on July 30, 1921, and P3,501.83 on August 29, 1922; but they allege as a defense that the contract entered into with the plaintiff is usurious, on account of the latter having collected an interest equivalent to 24 per centum; and as a counterclaim they pray that the plaintiff be compelled to return to them the sum of P13,872, which he had collected from them as interest, plus P3,000 for expenses of litigation and attorney’s fees.

His honor, the judge who tried this case, in a well reasoned decision, disposed of the first cause of action (a) ordering the defendants Albina Alvayda and Buenaventura Vicencio to pay to plaintiff Isidro S. Villaruel jointly the sum of P44,642.93 with interest thereon at 12 per centum from December 26, 1922, the date of the complaint, until full payment; (b) sentencing them also to pay the plaintiff the sum of P2,500 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; (c) ordering that these payments be made within the period of three (3) months, and that, if after said period the amount of the judgment was not paid, the property mortgaged described in the deed Exhibit A be sold at public auction, the proceeds of the sale to be applied upon the payment already mentioned. Upon the second cause of action, the defendants were sentenced to pay the plaintiff the sum of P500 with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint until full payment. As to the cross-complaint, the plaintiff was absolved therefrom. As to the counterclaim, the plaintiff was likewise absolved from the same. The defendants were sentenced to pay the costs.

The appellants complain of the trial court not having held the contract in question to be usurious, nor ordered the return to the defendants of the interest paid to the plaintiff, or the payment of the expenses of litigation and attorney’s fees.

An explanation of the items stated in Exhibits A and B is found in the following part of the judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appears from the testimony of the plaintiff and his Exhibit F (which the defendant Buenaventura Vicencio admits having written personally, and which appears to have been delivered by him to the plaintiff), that the amount paid on May 11, 1920, was P30,000, as was also testified to by the defendant Vicencio himself; and in this sum of P30,000 was included the interest for one year at 12 per cent, which is P3,600. It also appears that in August, 1920, the P6,000 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, and thus the P39,600 stated in the deed Exhibit A was completed.

"Subsequent to the deed Exhibit a the defendant Vicencio became indebted to the plaintiff in several amounts, which are set out in detail in Exhibit f as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Interest at 12 per cent on P6,000 from August,

1920, to May, 1921 P540.00

Paid in cash (January 13th) 580.00

Paid cash (May 12th, 1921) 20.00

Commission on sale 84.28

Cash 50.00

_______

Total 1,274.28

"At the maturity of the deed Exhibit A in May, 1921, as the defendants asked for an extension of one year and an increase of the credit, a liquidation was made between the plaintiff and the defendant, and capitalizing all the sums due on the date, the following result was obtained:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Amount of the deed Exhibit A P39,600.00

Amount subsequently due 1,274.28

________

40,874.28

Interest upon this sum at 12 per cent from May,

1921, To May, 1922 4,905.01

They made a total of 45,779.29

And make it a round number there was added 220.71

________

To make exactly 46,000.00

which is the amount stated in the document Exhibit B, renewing the document Exhibit A.

"With respect to the P220.71, the plaintiff advanced to the defendant the sum of P218, as stated in Exhibit F, and the remaining P2.71 to the defendant Vicencio.

"As to the sum of P46,000 stated in the deed of mortgage Exhibit B after charging the proper interest and deducting the amounts paid by the said defendant, namely P1,000 on July 31, 1921, and P3,501.83 on August 29, 1922 (as appears in Exhibits F and C, in paragraph V of the complaint, in the amended answer of the defendants and in Exhibit E), with the reciprocal interest accruing upon these sums, it results that in December 26, 1922, the date of the complaint, there was a debit balance of P44,642.93. This constitutes the first cause of action of the complaint.

"With reference to the second cause of action, it appears from Exhibit C that on September 1, 1922, the defendant took the sum of P500 on account, the interest of which does not appear to have been the subject of any stipulation.

"It also appears proven that in clause C of Exhibit B the sum of P2,500 was fixed as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should proceeding be instituted for the foreclosure of the mortgage."cralaw virtua1aw library

After studying the record, we are convinced that the findings of the trial court are supported by the evidence.

The contention of the appellants that the appellee has collected from them double interest upon the principal sum of P30,000 is groundless. According to the contract Exhibit A, the principal of P30,000 should draw interest at the rate of 12 per cent per centum per annum (from May 11, 1920, to the same date of May, 1921), that is P3,600, which amount was by agreement of the parties included in Exhibit A, like the P6,000 that the defendants may have subsequently received, which they in fact received in the month of August, 1920. But it does not appear that upon the original principal of P30,000 a new interest was ever charged at the time of the liquidation of accounts that the contracting parties made on May 11, 1921, for the extension of the period and the renewal of the mortgage Exhibit B, where the sum of P46,000 is stated.

To obtain this last amount, the sum of P3,600 was taken into account, which is the interest of the original principal of P30,000 at 12 per centum and which instead of being paid by the debtors was made a part of the principal debt then due. And we don not believe that there has been any illegality in it, for, as was held in Government of the Philippine Islands v. Schenkel and Gonzales (43 Phil., 616), the interest due constitutes, from the moment it is due, anew principal by agreement of the parties and the interest it earned should not be considered as accruing upon the original debt.

In support of the contention of the appellants, Exhibit 1 was introduced, dated may 31, 1921, written and signed by the appellee, regarding the sum of P5,520, the amount of the interest of the principal of P46,000 stated in Exhibit B.

The trial court found it proven that the plaintiff executed and signed Exhibit 1 in order to prevent the defendants from again being charged with the interest of the principal of P46,000 in the event of the death of said plaintiff and of his heirs, ignorant of the transaction, trying to enforce the stipulation in the deed Exhibit B. We see in this no error whatsoever justifying the reversal of the judgment appealed from. It if were true that the defendants paid the plaintiff on may 31, 1921, the sum of P5,520, as interest on the principal of P46,000, it cannot be conceived how the defendant Vicencio, who drew the document Exhibit F containing the liquidation, on July 31, 1921, that is to say, two months after Exhibit 1, has failed to include therein the respectable sum of P5,520.

The judgment appealed from, being in accordance with law, must be, as is hereby, affirmed with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Avanceña, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22015 September 1, 1924 - MARSHALL-WELLS CO. v. HENRY W. ELSER & CO., INC.

    046 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L- 21414 September 3, 1924 - RAMON ZARAGOZA v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    046 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 22126 September 6, 1924 - VENANCIO CORTES v. GREGORIA FLORES

    047 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. 22424 September 8, 1924 - RUFINO MANALO v. CAYETANO LUKBAN, ET AL.

    048 Phil 973

  • G.R. No. L-22132 September 9, 1924 - ANSELMA LAPUZ v. CFI OF PAMPANGA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-22740 September 10, 1924 - CIRILO ACEJAS v. ANDRES C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    046 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-21924 September 11, 1924 - SING JUCO v. BENJAMIN CUAYCONG, ET AL.

    046 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. L-22041 September 11, 1924 - JOSE ALEJANDRINO v. MANUEL L. QUEZON, ET AL.

    046 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-22106 September 11, 1924 - ASIA BANKING CORP. v. STANDARD PRODUCTS CO.

    046 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-21269 September 13, 1924 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FRANCISCO AVILA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-21587 September 13, 1924 - MATEO DISTOR v. GREGORIO DORADO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-21923 September 13, 1924 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO., LTD. v. POTENCIANO DE PIO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-22206 September 13, 1924 - JOSE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-21911 September 15, 1924 - EL VARADERO DE MLA. v. INSULAR LUMBER CO.

    046 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-21943 September 15, 1924 - ASKAY v. FERNANDO A. COSALAN

    046 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. 22102 September 19, 1924 - RAFAEL FLORES v. SOTERO FLORES, ET AL.

    048 Phil 982

  • G.R. No. L-21556 September 20, 1924 - AUGUSTO J. D. CORTES v. LORENZO RAMOS

    046 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 21387 September 22, 1924 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    048 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. 21206 September 22, 1924 - ANTONIO ABEJOLA v. INOCENTES DAVID, ET AL.

    049 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. L-22911 September 23, 1924 - RAMON BLANCO, ET AL. v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, ET AL.

    046 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-21639 September 25, 1924 - ALBERT F. KIEL v. ESTATE OF P. S. SABERT

    046 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-21969 September 25, 1924 - MAXIMINA TAN v. GO CHIONG LEE, ET AL.

    046 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-22073 September 25, 1924 - AMERICAN EXPRESS CO., INC., ET AL. v. JOAQUIN NATIVIDAD

    046 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-22173 September 25, 1924 - JULIANA ABRAGAN, ET AL. v. RITA G. DE CENTENERA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-20732 September 26, 1924 - C. W. ROSENSTOCK v. EDWIN BURKE, ET AL.

    046 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-22082 September 26, 1924 - LEOPOLDO DE BELEN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    046 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-21487 September 27, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MAMERTO A. VALDELLON, ET AL.

    046 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. L-21718 September 27, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SOTERO BERMEJO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-21922 September 27, 1924 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RUSTICO PADILLA

    046 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-22080 September 27, 1927

    EL DORADO OIL WORKS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    046 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-22557 September 27, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ZACARIAS RAGAZA

    046 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-21671 September 29, 1924 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. MUN. OF TABACO

    046 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-21995 September 29, 1924 - ISIDRO S. VILLARUEL v. ALBINA ALVAYDA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-21805 September 30, 1924 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANDRES ABSOLO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-21859 September 30, 1924 - CIRIACO FULE v. ANASTASIO FULE, ET AL.

    046 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-22063 September 30, 1924 - LUCIO FRANCISCO v. CRISPULO ONRUBIA

    046 Phil 327