Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > April 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

101 Phil 301:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-10573. April 29, 1957.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Sulu, 16th Judicial District and DATU MOHAMMAD DANIAL, Respondents.

Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Antonio A. Torres for Petitioner.

Abraham Rasul and Briones, Pascual & Associates for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. PACTO DE RETRO SALE; EVIDENCE; PAROL EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW THAT THE CONTRACT WAS A DEVICE TO COVER USURY. — Just as the courts will go through and beyond the form of a contract of sale with pacto de retro in order to determine the real agreement between the parties, which is only an equitable mortgage to secure a loan, so the courts may do the same and disregard the seemingly valid terms of a deed of sale with right to repurchase, and arrive at the conclusion that the transaction was only that of a loan, with interest beyond the legal rate. This is done specially when the attendant circumstances indicate that the transaction between the parties could not have been one of sale, as in the case at bar.


D E C I S I O N


MONTEMAYOR, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order of respondent Judge Macapanton Abbas of the Court of First Instance of Sulu, in Criminal Case No. 1155 for violation of the Usury Law, against Datu Mohammad Danial, issued on March 28, 1956, in the course of the trial of said case, sustaining the objection of the defense to the introduction by the prosecution of parol evidence to show that the document entitled "Deed of Sale of Real Property with Right to Repurchase" was really a contract of loan secured by a mortgage, tainted with usury.

The amended information filed by the fiscal in said criminal case reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about September 15, 1952, in the Municipality of Jolo, Province of Sulu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused made a loan of P3,000 to the spouses Asaali Gani and Indah Atung Gani, which was to be secured by a contract of a pacto de retro sale of a portion of a building belonging to the aforenamed couple, situated at the corner of Serantes Street and a still unnamed road, of the Municipality of Jolo, Province of Sulu, Philippines, and that the said accused, in order to cover up his usurious transaction with the aforenamed Asaali Gani and Indah Atung Gani, made it appear in the aforementioned contract of pacto de retro sale executed between them that the whole amount loaned was P5,500, when in truth and in fact, the real and true amount loaned and received by the aforesaid Asaali Gani and Indah Atung Gani was only P3,000, the additional amount of P2,500 represented the interest for five (5) months of P500 per month, and that on or about the period comprising between the end of September, 1952 up to April 1953, in the same municipality of Jolo, Province of Sulu, Philippines, the said accused did then and there take and receive from the said Asaali Gani and Indah Atung Gani the sum of P250, P900 and P2,500 as interest on the said loan of P3,000, thereby willfully, unlawfully and feloniously taking and receiving an interest which is very much higher than that prescribed by law, to the damage and prejudice of the aforesaid Asaali Gani and Indah Atung Gani in the total amount of P3,650, Philippine currency."cralaw virtua1aw library

During the trial, Asaali Gani, one of the vendors in the deed of sale, was presented as a witness by the fiscal, and while testifying, he was made to identify the deed of sale which was marked as an exhibit, and was asked by said fiscal why the document was called deed of sale with pacto de retro if the real contract between the parties was one of loan. The defense objected to the question on the ground that no evidence of the terms of the agreement or contract other than the contract itself and its contents shall be allowed. The respondent Judge sustained the objection of the defense and later requested the prosecution and the defense each to submit a memorandum in support of their respective contentions. Later, respondent Judge issued his order of March 28, 1956, definitely sustaining the objection to the introduction of parol evidence intended to alter the terms of the deed of sale with pacto de retro, on the ground that "to hold otherwise would be to establish a very dangerous doctrine which would throw wide open the doors to fraud . . . and allow defaulting mortgagors and vendors a retro to harass those from whom they might have come for financial help."cralaw virtua1aw library

We find an extended discussion of the question involved to be unnecessary for the reason that the said legal point has already been passed upon and definitely determined by this Court. In the case of Cuyugan v. Santos, 34 Phil., 113, this Tribunal said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The American doctrine on this subject does not differ materially from the principles set forth in our Civil Code.

"We insert here an extract of some length from the discussion of the subject (supported by numerous citations of authority) found in Jones’ Commentaries on Evidence, (1913) volume 3, paragraphs 446, 447:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘446. To show that instruments apparently absolute are only securities. — It has long been the settled rule that in courts exercising equitable jurisdiction it is admissible to prove by parol that instruments in writing apparently transferring the absolute title are in fact only given as security. The doctrine is thus stated by Mr. Field: "It is an established doctrine that a court of equity will treat a deed, absolute in form, as a mortgage, when it is executed as security for loan of money. That court looks beyond the terms of the instrument to the real transaction; and when that is shown to be one security and not of sale, it will give effect to the actual contract of the parties. As the equity, upon which the court acts in such cases, arises from the real character of the transaction, any evidence, written or oral, tending to show this is admissible. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of U.S. v. Constantino Tan Quingco, Chua, 39 Phil., 552, we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The form of the contract is not conclusive. Parol evidence is admissible to show that a written document though legal in form was in fact a device to cover usury. If from a construction of the whole transaction it becomes apparent that there exists a corrupt intent to violate the Usury Law, the Court should, and will, permit no scheme, however ingenious to becloud the crime of usury."cralaw virtua1aw library

We find no reason for modifying or otherwise abandoning the doctrine laid down in the above-cited cases. Otherwise, it would be very difficult and next to impossible to prove a usurious transaction behind a cleverly prepared contract, which is clothed with all the outward forms and requisites of a valid contract of pacto de retro with right of repurchase. Just as the courts will go through and beyond the form of a contract of sale with pacto de retro in order to determine the real agreement between the parties, which is only an equitable mortgage to secure a loan, so they (the courts) may do the same and disregard the seemingly valid terms of a deed of sale with right to repurchase, and arrive at the conclusion that the transaction was only that of a loan, with interest beyond the legal rate. This is done specially when the attendant circumstances indicate that the transaction between the parties could not have been one of sale.

In the present case, according to the terms of the "Deed of Sale of Real Property with Right to Repurchase", the property sold is one- half of a building with an assessed value of P36,000. One-half of said assessed value is P18,000. It is of common knowledge that the assessed value of real property, specially in the provinces, is far below the real and market value of the same, some times, only one-half or even less; so that the real value of one-half of the building said to be sold, most likely, was double P18,000, that is to say, P36,000, if not more. It is hard to believe that this property was being sold for only P5,500. Under the circumstances, it was perfectly valid and proper for the prosecution to ask the offended party and alleged vendor, the question objected to by the defense, and otherwise introduce parol evidence to show that the real transaction and agreement between the parties was not one of sale, but of loan, and that the interest charged by the creditor was usurious; that a part of the amount of the loan of P5,500 had been retained by him as advance interest; and that the amount actually received by the borrower was only P3,000, and not P5,500.

In view of the foregoing, the petitioner is granted and the order complained of is set aside. Respondent Judge is hereby directed to allow the question, the objection to which he had previously sustained, and, otherwise, to permit the prosecution to introduce parol evidence to prove the allegations of the information. No costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, 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






April-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9543 April 11, 1957 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    101 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-9962 April 11, 1957 - BENJAMIN MACASA, ET AL v. CRISTETO HERRERA

    101 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-10483 April 12, 1957 - JUAN B. MENDEZ v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL

    101 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-9519 April 15, 1957 - EUTIQUIO TORRE, ET AL v. HON. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

    101 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-9892 April 15, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BASALO

    101 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10288 April 15, 1957 - DIONISIA PATINGO v. HON. PANTALEON PELAYO

    101 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-9807 April 17, 1957 - PAN PHIL., CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL

    101 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-10017 April 17, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO KEE KAM

    101 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-8862 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: UY TIAO HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9230 April 22, 1957 - ANDRES A. ANGARA v. DRA. JOSEFINA A. GOROSPE, ET AL

    101 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-9415 April 22, 1957 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    101 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-9601 April 22, 1957 - IN RE: PABLO CHANG BRIONES LORENZO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-9811 April 22, 1957 - GEORGE L. TUBB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    101 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. L-9840 April 22, 1957 - LU DO & LU YM CORP. v. I. V. BINAMIRA

    101 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-9908 April 22, 1957 - STANDARD CIGARETTE WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    101 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-9983 April 22, 1957 - SANTOS O. CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-10061 April 22, 1957 - ALFREDO C. YULO v. CHAN PE

    101 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-10129 April 22, 1957 - PASCUAL ROMANO, ET AL v. CRISOSTOMO PARINAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-10458 April 22, 1957 - VICENTE MIJARES, ET AL v. HON. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-11146 April 22, 1957 - MARIETA VIRGINIA CRUZCOSA, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, ET AL

    101 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-9292 April 23, 1957 - JOHNSTON LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-9460 April 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO UY

    101 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-9682 April 23, 1957 - CHAY GUAN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    101 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-9843 April 23, 1957 - IN RE: MANUEL YU TONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-10064 April 23, 1957 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. v. BUEN MORALES

    101 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-10754 April 23, 1957 - FÉLIX M. MONTE v. HON. JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, ET AL

    101 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-8293 April 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LUBO, ET AL

    101 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-9729 April 24, 1957 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. INC. v. CHUA TUA HIAN

    101 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-9194 April 25, 1957 - CO TAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-9602 April 25, 1957 - IN RE: TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-10170 April 25, 1957 - WESTERN MINDANAO LUMBER CO. v. MINDANAO FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL

    101 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-9782 April 26, 1957 - HILARION CORTEZ v. JUAN AVILA

    101 Phil 205

  • G.R. Nos. L-10123 & L-10355 April 26, 1957 - GENARO URSAL v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4962 April 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAQUERO, ET AL

    101 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-9712 April 27, 1957 - IN RE: ONG HO PING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-9810 April 27, 1957 - ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    101 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-6713 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DAISIN

    101 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-8752 April 29, 1957 - BENITO COSA v. JUAN BAROTILLO

    101 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-8957 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES O. FERRER

    101 Phil 234

  • G.R. Nos. L-9117-18 April 29 1957

    COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LOURDES CUENCO, ET AL

    101 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-9156 April 29, 1957 - WISE & COMPANY v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

    101 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-9186 April 29, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JUAN ISASI, ET AL

    101 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-9674 April 29, 1957 - MELECIO ARRANZ v. MANILA FIDELITY & SURETY CO.

    101 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-9694 April 29, 1957 - VICENTE VILLANUEVA, ET AL v. JUANA ALCOBA

    101 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-9727 April 29, 1957 - MARGARITA TABUNAN v. TIMOTEO MARIGMEN, ET AL

    101 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-9855 April 29, 1957 - MELCHOR MANIEGO v. RICARDO L. CASTELO

    101 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-9987 April 29, 1957 - GRACIANO INDIAS v. PHIL., IRON MINES

    101 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-10573 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL

    101 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. L-10585 April 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR D. INTAL

    101 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-10688 April 29, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. BANK OF THE PHIL., ISLANDS, ET AL

    101 Phil 309

  • G.R. AC-UNAV. April 30, 1957 - In Re Charges of LILIAN F. VILLASANTA for Immorality v. HILARION M. PERALTA

    101 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-7820 April 30, 1957 - MIGUEL CARAM, ET AL v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

    101 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 229 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

    101 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-6239 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TAN

    101 Phil 324

  • G.R. Nos. L-8895 & L-9191 April 30, 1957 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    101 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-8907 April 30, 1957 - JOSE L. LOPEZ v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS & GEN., MANAGER OF THE NAT’L. MKTG., CORP.

    101 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-9110 April 30, 1957 - JOSEFA VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL v. MANILA HOTEL CO.

    101 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-9160 April 30, 1957 - ADRIANO GOLEZ v. CARMELO S. CAMARA

    101 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-9208-16 April 30, 1957 - MARIA VELARDE, ET AL v. FELIPA PAEZ, ET AL

    101 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-9540 April 30, 1957 - SEVERINO MANOTOK v. ELADIO GUINTO

    101 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-9637 April 30, 1957 - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY v. CITY OF MANILA

    101 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-9638 April 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADELINA NABALUNA, ET AL

    101 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-9823 April 30, 1957 - IN RE: JESUS ISASI Y LARRABIDE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    101 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-9900 April 30, 1957 - YUCUANSEH DRUG CO., INC., ET AL v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    101 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-10056 April 30, 1957 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    101 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-10080 April 30, 1957 - DEE CHO LUMBER WORKERS’ UNION v. DEE CHO LUMBER COMPANY

    101 Phil 417

  • G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356 April 30, 1957 - CARLOS J. TORRES v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL

    101 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-10153 April 30, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

    101 Phil 431

  • G.R. Nos. L-10308 & L-10385-88 April 30, 1957 - MARIA PAZ S. ALBA, ET AL v. DR. HORACIO BULAONG, ET AL

    101 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-10338 April 30, 1957 - MAGALONA & CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL

    101 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-10736 April 30, 1957 - EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET AL v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL

    101 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-10771 April 30, 1957 - EDUARDO M. PERALTA v. DANIEL M. SALCEDO, ETC

    101 Phil 452