Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > February 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 39425 February 10, 1934 - SILVERIO F. GARCIA v. JOSE A. DE ARAMBURO and ELVIRA VEGUILLAS DE ARAMBURO

059 Phil 478:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 39425. February 10, 1934.]

SILVERIO F. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE A. DE ARAMBURO and ELVIRA VEGUILLAS DE ARAMBURO, Defendants-Appellants.

Bonto & Gutierrez Lora for Appellants.

Fernando P. Gerona for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. LOAN; USURY. — Although it is true that failure to deny under oath the defendants’ cross-complaint, wherein it is alleged that the interest charged is usurious, constitutes an admission thereof, such admission can have no other effect but the reduction of the alleged usurious interest to the legal rate and the refund of the excess.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This is an appeal taken by the defendants Jose A. de Aramburo and Elvira Veguillas de Aramburo from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Albay, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Wherefore, the court incorporates in this decision the judgment rendered on December 27, 1932, wherein it stated the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘The court renders judgment ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiff, within 90 days from the date this judgment becomes final, the sum of P16,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum corresponding to the years 1930, 1931 and 1932, until fully paid, said defendants being entitled to deduct the sum of P930 therefrom. Upon their failure to pay, it is hereby ordered that the mortgaged property be sold at public auction and the proceeds thereof applied to the payment of the costs and expenses of this suit, and of the amount claimed together with interest thereon, with half of the costs. So ordered.’"

In support of their appeal, the appellants assigned the following alleged errors as committed by the trial court in its decision, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The trial court erred in permitting the plaintiff-appellee to present evidence for the purpose of denying the allegation of usury contained in the defendant’s cross-complaint, notwithstanding the fact that said plaintiff failed to file his written answer under oath to said cross-complaint.

"2. The trial court erred in not holding that the loan of P16,000 granted by the plaintiff to the defendants is usurious and, therefore, null and void.

"3. The trial court erred in not ordering the plaintiff-appellee to refund the entire interest and to pay the costs of the suit together with the fees of the attorneys for the defendants.

"4. The trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial."cralaw virtua1aw library

The necessary and pertinent facts proven by a preponderance of evidence during the trial are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On December 3, 1929, the herein defendants-appellants, Jose A. de Aramburo and Elvira Veguillas de Aramburo, accompanied by their attorney, the deceased Adolfo Olbes, applied for and obtained from the herein plaintiff-appellee Silverio F. Garcia a loan of P16,000, with mortgage security, public instrument Exhibit A having been executed to that effect. It was agreed by and between the mortgagee and the mortgagors that the latter should pay interest thereon in advance at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and that the term of the contract would be one year, extensible from year to year for five years if the mortgagors paid the interest corresponding to the first year in advance. Inasmuch as the document had to be registered first in the office of the register of deeds of Albay, the defendants-appellants could not receive the money until the following day, December 4, 1929. Said mortgagee and mortgagors likewise agreed that the latter should pay the sum of P20 for the inspection of the mortgaged property and other incidental expenses, all of which amounted to P25. This amount, together with the sum of P1,920 representing interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, was to be deducted from the loan of P16,000.

On December 4, 1929, the herein plaintiff-appellee Silverio F. Garcia, before going abroad for the purpose of continuing his studies in medicine, issued the check Exhibit X for the sum of P15,055 instead of for P14,055, as it should be, after deducting therefrom the aforesaid interest and expenses, which check he delivered to the defendants-appellants.

The first question to decide in this appeal is whether or not the loan of P16,000 granted by the plaintiff-appellee to the defendants-appellants is usurious.

The said defendants-appellants claim that they paid the sum of P1,920 in cash as advance interest on the loan of P16,000; that upon issuing the check in question, the plaintiff-appellee deducted therefrom the sum of P945, which represented an additional interest of 6 per cent per annum, thus reducing the amount of said check to P15,055, and that said defendants-appellants had to pay the further sum of P15 (Exhibit I). On the other hand, the plaintiff-appellee claims that, pursuant to the stipulation, he deducted from said loan of P16,000 the interest of 12 per cent per annum corresponding to the first year, that is the sum of P1,920 plus the additional sum of P25 representing the expenses for inspection and drawing of the deed, leaving a balance of P14,055. However, in his haste to get to Manila to catch his boat for Europe, he wrote the sum of P15,055 on the check Exhibit X instead of P14,055, that is P1,000 more than what he should have given to the defendants-appellants, after deducting said interest for one year.

Neither of the two contentions seems logical. With respect to the contention of the defendants-appellants, it is unusual for a person, who obtains money from another in the form of a loan and agrees to pay interest thereon in advance, to have on hand or to be required to have on hand, money to pay said interest instated of deducting it from the loan, whether said loan be delivered in cash or by check, particularly when the amount of the interest is of sufficient consideration as in the present case, inasmuch as it is presumed that the debtor, in borrowing money, has no funds. Furthermore, the interest of 6 per cent which said defendants-appellants claim to have been deducted by the plaintiff-appellee from the sum of P16,000, after the latter had received, in advance, cash representing the interest thereon for one year at the rate of 12 per cent, does not tally with the balance necessary to raise the amount of the check to exactly P16,000, said balance being P945 and therefore lacks P15, to make it P960, which is the interest on P16,000 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

With respect to the contention of the plaintiff-appellee, it is incredible that he would commit the mistake of issuing the check Exhibit X for the sum of P15,055 instead of P14,055.

The second question to decide is whether or not the existence of usury was admitted by reason of the plaintiff-appellee’s failure to deny under oath the allegations of the defendants-appellants’ cross- complaint to the effect that the former charged them an interest in excess of 12 per cent.

Although it is true that such omission implies an admission (Lo Bun Chay v. Paulino, 54 Phil., 144), such admission can have no other effect but the reduction of the alleged usurious interest to the legal rate and the refund of the excess. In this case, the only sum which the plaintiff-appellee should have to refund would be P960 which the defendants-appellants more than 12 per cent interest per annum.

Wherefore, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, it is hereby affirmed in toto, with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Malcolm, Hull, Imperial, and Diaz, 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






February-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 39590 February 6, 1934 - JESUS AZCONA v. ALBERTA L. REYES, ET AL.

    059 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 39607 February 6, 1934 - ENCARNACION MAGALONA, ET AL. v. JUAN PESAYCO

    059 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 39933 February 6, 1934 - RODOLFO TORRELA v. JOSE PEREZ MINGUEZ, ET AL.

    059 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41072 February 7, 1934 - PO SUN TUN v. EMILIO MAPA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 37197 February 8, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARCELO TURNO

    059 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 39696 February 8, 1934 - MARIA GUERRERO, ET AL. v. JOSE DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 39889 February 8, 1934 - SEINOSUKE OGURA v. SOTERO CHUA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 39425 February 10, 1934 - SILVERIO F. GARCIA v. JOSE A. DE ARAMBURO and ELVIRA VEGUILLAS DE ARAMBURO

    059 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 38765 February 12, 1934 - LUIS MA. ROBLES v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 39802 February 12, 1934 - DOROTEA MENDOZA VIUDA DE BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. ANTONIA CECILIO VIUDA DE PARDO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 40233 February 14, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. JOSE ESTEVA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 40390 February 14, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE C. NAVALES

    059 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 40849 February 14, 1934 - PERFECTO CORTIGUERA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    059 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 40266 February 15, 1934 - PROVINCIA DEL SANTISIMO NOMBRE DE JESUS v. C. H. CONRAD

    059 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 40203 February 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SANTIAGO GIMENA

    059 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 37866 February 17, 1934 - NICANOR JACINTO v. JUANA FAJARDO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 40620 February 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    059 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 40684 February 17, 1934 - CHUA GO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. 39881 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO DE LA CRUZ

    059 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 39882 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO DE LA CRUZ

    059 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 40602 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GREGORIO BERIO

    059 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 39177 February 21, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TAN DIONG, ET AL.

    059 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 40008 February 21, 1934 - PAULINO ACOSTA v. NICOLAS LLACUNA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 38612 February 23, 1934 - CIRIACO LIZADA v. OMANAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 41061 February 23, 1934 - MOISES S. AMPIL v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    059 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 41202 February 23, 1934 - LUCIO ARIZ v. CFI OF MANILA

    059 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 39427 February 24, 1934 - TIRSO GARCIA v. LIM CHU SING

    059 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 39461 February 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CORAZON DE CORTEZ

    059 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 39478 February 24, 1934 - PROCESO ECHARRI, ET AL. v. JUAN BELEN VELASCO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 39634 February 27, 1934 - ROSARIO GUANZON v. GRACIANO RIVERA

    059 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 40098 February 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLAND v. FELIX AZCONA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 40705 February 28, 1934 - TOLEDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    059 Phil 586