Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > April 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21440 April 30, 1966 SUN BROS. APPLIANCES, INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21440. April 30, 1966.]

SUN BROS. APPLIANCES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD, Defendant-Appellee.

Dominador A. Alafriz & Associates for plaintiff and Appellant.

Eusebio V. Navarro for defendant and appellee.



SYLLABUS


1. PURCHASE AND SALE; SALE ON INSTALLMENT PLAN; INCREASE IN PRICE NOT INTEREST WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF USURY LAW. — The owner of property, whether real or personal, has a perfect right to name the price on which he is willing to sell, and to refuse to accede to any other. He may offer to sell at designated price for cash or at a much higher price on credit, and a credit sale will not constitute usury however great the difference between the two prices, unless the buying and selling was a mere pretense. In the case at bar, the contract entered into between the parties was a conditional sale based on an installment plan. The increase in the price of the article sold cannot, therefore, be considered interest within the purview of the Usury Law.

2. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; USURY; FAILURE TO DENY TRANSACTION UNDER OATH; EFFECT OF. — If it is alleged that defendant entered into a contract of loan with plaintiff in which the latter collected a usurious interest there is need to deny the transaction under oath, and if no oath is taken the only thing admitted is the allegation that the interest is usurious and not that the contract entered into is a loan. The nature of the transaction is not admitted. The fact that what is alleged is that the transaction was a loan under the guise of a conditional contract of sale and that by increasing its prices by 150% the consideration became usurious, such is not deemed admitted by the mere failure to deny the answer under oath.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Plaintiff filed before the Municipal Court of Manila a complaint based on a conditional sale of one G.P. Television Set, Model 21, Console 1960, Serial No. 652548, under the condition that the price would be P3,440.00, the down payment of P884.00, and it would be paid in monthly installments of P142.00 each for 18 months. Defendant only paid the amount of P1,442.00, leaving a balance of P1,988.00, which he failed to pay since March, 1961, for which reason plaintiff prayed that if said balance is not paid, the property be returned to plaintiff.

Defendant denied owing said balance of P1,988.00 for he contends that what he bought from plaintiff was a Philco Television Set, Model 21, with a value of P1,700.00, payable within 90 days, but that it was destroyed by plaintiff’s technicians and so it was replaced with a G.E. set on a cash bases, payable within 90 days, the advance payment made on the original set to be credited on the second set. It was agreed that the true market value of the G.E. set would be P1,500.00 but defendant made plaintiff sign a deed of sale for P3,440.00 thereby adding more than 150% to the original price. It is alleged that plaintiff in effect entered into a usurious transaction under the guise of a contract of sale.

Apparently, the case was elevated to the court of first instance because of the question of law involved.

The allegation of usury made by defendant in his answer was not denied under oath by plaintiff and so the court a quo considered said allegation as admitted under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the court a quo considered the transaction null and void and on that basis dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff brought the case on appeal directly before this court when its motion for reconsideration was denied on the plea that the same merely involves questions of law.

Plaintiff in its complaint alleges that the transaction between the parties was a conditional sale the terms thereof having been specified therein. Defendant in his answer admits that what he originally bought from plaintiff was one Philco Television Set, Model 21, Console 1960, the terms of payment having been specified in the contract of sale. Defendant admits that he failed to pay the purchase price within the term of 90 days agreed upon.

It appears, therefore, that the transaction that took place between the parties was a conditional sale based on an installment plan, and not a loan, so that the alleged increase in the price of the article sold cannot be considered as a mere pretext to cover a usurious loan. It has been held that "The increase of the price is not interest within the purview of the Usury Law, if the sale is made in good faith and not a mere pretext to cover a usurious loan" (Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Tamaraw Plantation Co., 47 Phil., 513). And elaborating on said case, this Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The increase of the price, when the sale is on credit, serves not only to cover the expenses generally entailed by such transactions on credit, but also to encourage cash sales, so useful to commerce. It is up to the purchaser to decide which price he prefers in making the purchase. If he prefers to purchase for cash, he obtains a 5 per cent reduction of the price; if, on the contrary, he prefers to buy on credit, he cannot complain of the increase of the price demanded by the vendor.

"In 27 R.C.L., p. 214, it is said: `On principle and authority, the owner of the property, whether real or personal, has a perfect right to name the price on which he is willing to sell, and to refuse to accede to any other. He may offer to sell at a designated price for cash or at a much higher price on credit, and a credit sale will not constitute usury however great the difference between the two price, unless the buying and selling was a mere pretense.’ And in 39 Cyc., p. 927, it is also established that: ‘A vendor may well fix upon his property one price for cash and another for credit and the mere fact that the credit price exceeds the cost price by a greater percentage than is permitted by the usury laws is a matter of concern to the parties but not to the courts, barring evidence of bad faith. If the parties have acted in good faith such a transaction is not a loan, and not usurious.’"

Defendant’s contention that the failure of plaintiff to specifically deny under oath the allegation of usury in his answer constitutes an implied admission of usury is untenable. If it is alleged that defendant entered into a contract of loan with plaintiff in which the latter collected a usurious interest there is need to deny the transaction under oath, and if no oath is taken the only thing admitted is the allegation that the interest is usurious and not that the contract entered into is a loan. The nature of the transaction is not admitted. The fact that what is alleged is that the transaction was a loan under the guise of a conditional contract of sale and that by increasing its price by 150% the consideration became usurious, such is not deemed admitted by the mere failure to deny the answer under oath. This transaction must still be proven before usury can be invoked in the light of the following ruling of this Court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It may, of course, be held in general that only that for which the law required an oath is deemed admitted, should no oath be taken. If it is alleged in the complaint that the defendant whether an individual or a corporation, has entered into a contract of loan with the plaintiff, there is no need for a sworn answer. But if he added that on this loan defendant has collected usurious interest, that is, interest in excess of the rate fixed by law, then there is need of an oath. In that case, if no oath is taken to the answer, the only thing admitted is the allegation that the interest charged is usurious, not that the contract entered into is a loan, which is something that must be proved independently of the admission, especially when, as in the one in question, this allegation is disputed.

"The intervenor Hilarion Soriano not only alleges that the plaintiff charged, and that he paid him, usurious interest, but also that the contract they made, under the guise of a sale subject to repurchase, according to its terms, was in reality a contract of loan wherein usurious interest was stipulated and collected. He should therefore have shown by competent evidence that that contract was really a loan. But, not only is there not a scintilla of evidence to this effect, but, on the contrary, the evidence of record, which is the contract itself, shows conclusively that it was a sale subject to repurchase. Wherefore, as the plaintiff and the intervenor did not enter into a contract of loan by virtue of which usurious interest could be collected, and as the contract entered into between them was a sale upon which usurious interest could not be collected, the admission established by the law that such interest was in fact collected, does not exist. The law cannot presume an absurdity. In order that this admission of the collection of usurious interest may be invoked, it is necessary first to establish the contract by virtue of which such interest could be collected." (Lo Bun Chay v. Paulino, 54 Phil., 144, 147-148).

The contract entered into between the parties being a conditional sale, the increase in price over the cash price cannot be considered interest, and so the dismissal of the case by the court a quo is not justified.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., concurs in the result.

Judgment reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings.




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-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21752 April 25, 1966 SIMEON HIDALGO v. LA TONDEÑA, INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 377 April 29, 1966 CONCEPCION BOLIVAR v. ABELARDO M. SIMBOL

  • G.R. No. L-15471 April 29, 1966 BENJAMIN T. PONCE v. HQTRS., PHIL. ARMY EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-18067 April 29, 1966 PEDRO F. NACIONALES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18570 April 29, 1966 BARTOLOME GUIRAO v. EVARISTO VER

  • G.R. No. L-19161 April 29, 1966 MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19327 April 29, 1966 AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19558 April 29, 1966 LA MALLORCA, ET AL. v. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-19576 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19609 April 29, 1966 JOSE NEGRE v. CABAHUG SHIPPING & CO.

  • G.R. No. L-19645 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19647 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENEDICTO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20480 April 29, 1966 CLARA SALAZAR, ET AL. v. FILEMON Q. ORTIZANO

  • G.R. No. L-20709 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANDRONICO AUGUSTO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20710 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEREGRINA TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21072 April 29, 1966 BRUNO TORRALBA, ET AL. v. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21194 April 29, 1966 HAW LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21285 April 29, 1966 MANUFACTURER’S DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. YU SIU LIONG

  • G.R. No. L-21321 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-19581 April 29, 1966 IN RE: SUSANO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19847 April 29, 1966 IN RE: GUADALUPE UY SIOCO NACAGUE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19502 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEDRO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21907 April 29, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21457 and L-21461 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-23082 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21778 April 29, 1966 IN RE: CHAN PENG HIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21895 April 29, 1966 IN RE: AGUEDA GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21762 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEON C. SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21078 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO L. CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20715 April 29, 1966 IN RE: WAYNE CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20510 April 29, 1966 FELICIDAD TOLENTINO v. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20397 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20188 April 29, 1966 PETER C. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20159 April 29, 1966 MIGUEL GERMANO, ET AL. v. ERENEO SURITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20016 April 29, 1966 IN RE: EMMANUEL YU NAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21446 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEE TIT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21452 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENITO KO BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21477-81 April 29, 1966 FRANCISCA VILUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21493-94 April 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. CAINGLET

  • G.R. No. L-21516 April 29, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21555 April 29, 1966 DOROTEA BALMEO v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21593 April 29, 1966 RAYMUNDA S. DIGRAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21695 April 29, 1966 ILDEFONSO AGREDA, ET AL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21812 April 29, 1966 PAZ TORRES DE CONEJERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22117 April 29, 1966 PAMPANGA SUGAR DEV. CO., INC. v. DONATO QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. L-22120 April 29, 1966 ILUMINADO MOTUS, ET AL. v. CFI OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22220 April 29, 1966 A. D. SANTOS, INC. v. CONCHITA VDA. DE SAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22454 April 29, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22594 April 29, 1966 CECILIA RAPADAZ VDA. DE RAPISURA v. NICANOR NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 241 April 30, 1966 REBECCA M. MIRANDA v. FRANCISCO FUENTES

  • G.R. No. L-16969 April 30, 1966 R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-17037 April 30, 1966 EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18032 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO SERDEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-18308 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15823-26 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALBAL SIGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18867 April 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO OCTOBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19397 April 30, 1966 TEODORA MATIAS DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL. v. MARIA DIZON DE MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19613 April 30, 1966 ALFONSO G. LOPEZ v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE SEGUROS

  • G.R. No. L-19869 April 30, 1966 PATRICIO M. MIGUEL v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20018 April 30, 1966 CHIU HAP CHIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20155 April 30, 1966 LEXAL PURE DRUG LAB. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20687 April 30, 1966 MAXIMINO VALDEPENAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20721 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALAGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21034 April 30, 1966 IN RE: THOMAS FALLON v. EMILIO CAMON

  • G.R. No. L-21139 April 30, 1966 CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21440 April 30, 1966 SUN BROS. APPLIANCES, INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD

  • G.R. No. L-21460 April 30, 1966 AMERICAN MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21471 April 30, 1966 VICENTE S. DY REYES, ET AL. v. FRUCTUOSO ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20875 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21623 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21760 April 30, 1966 SWITZERLAND GEN. INS. CO., LTD. v. JAVA PACIFIC & HOEGH LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21685 April 30, 1966 CLETO ASPREC v. VICTORIANO ITCHON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21693 April 30, 1966 PROCOPIO F. ELEAZAR v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-21810 April 30, 1966 ARMANDO ESPERANZA v. ANDRES CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-22085 April 30, 1966 IN RE: SEGUNDA VDA. DE GAMIR, ET AL. v. THELMA G. SAWAMOTO

  • G.R. No. L-22143 April 30, 1966 LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. ANTONIO TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22192 April 30, 1966 IN RE: VIRGILIO LIM TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22210 April 30, 1966 PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22305 April 30, 1966 PRAXEDES GABRIEL, ET AL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASS’N. v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23812 April 30, 1966 PRIMO T. OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21191 April 30, 1966 EVERETT STEAMSHIP CORP. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20022 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO SALVACION

  • G.R. No. L-20905 April 30, 1966 MARTA A. VDA. DE CUIZON v. EMILIANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20028 & L-20029 April 30, 1966 GREGORIO ATIENZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18514 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO TANIA, ET AL.