Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > November 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-57314 November 29, 1983 - TEODORO SANCHEZ v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

211 Phil. 389:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-57314. November 29, 1983.]

TEODORO SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. HON. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, Presiding Judge, Branch VII, Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Iriga City, and ALEJO SANCHEZ, Respondents.

Andres C. Regalado for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; CREDIT TRANSACTION: LOAN: USURIOUS INTEREST; FORFEITURE OF CAPITAL IN FAVOR OF DEBTOR NOT ALLOWED. — It is now well-settled that: "The Usury Law (Act No. 2655), by its letter and spirit, does not deprive the lender of his right to recover of the borrower the money actually loaned — this only in the case that the interest oollected is usurious. The law, as it is now, does not provide for the forfeiture of the capital in favor of the debtor in usurious . . ." (Lopez and Javelona v. El Hogar Filipino, 47 Phil. 249, 275 [1925]).

AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CIVIL LAW; CREDIT TRANSACTION; LOAN; USURIOUS INTEREST; FORFEITURE OF PRINCIPAL OF A USURIOUS LOAN; NOT PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW. — The original rule was that while the usurious loan is void this does not mean that the debtor may keep the principal received by him as loan, thus unjustly enriching himself to the damage of the creditor. The creditor has no right of action for the recovery of the stipulated interest although he may sue for the recovery of the principal loaned. (Syllabus, Go Chioco v. Martinez, 45 Phil. 256).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MAXIMUM RATE OF INTEREST NOW FIXED BY THE MONETARY BOARD. — It may be stated that Presidential Decree No. 116, as amended by Presidential Decrees No. 858 and 1684, has transferred to the Monetary Board the power to fix the maximum rate of interest. Section 7 of the Law was amended by Presidential Decree No. 116. It does not provide for the forfeiture of the principal of a usurious loan.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


This is a petition to review a decision rendered by the defunct Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch VII, with following factual background.

On August 25, 1976, Alejo Sanchez sued Teodoro Sanchez and Leonor Santilles in the Municipal Court of Bato, Camarines Sur, for the recovery of P2,000.00 which the latter had promised to pay in two notes. Said notes also contained stipulations for interest at the rate of 10% per month. The Municipal Court rendered judgment ordering Teodoro Sanchez only to pay to Alejo Sanchez P2,000.00 plus interest thereon at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint.

Teodoro appealed to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur which rendered the following judgment:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, the judgment rendered by the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED with modification as to costs. Judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the defendant to pay his indebtedness to plaintiff in the total sum of P2,000.00, plus interest thereon at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint in this case to actual payment. Defendant to pay double the costs of this suit." (Rollo, p. 30.)

In his petition for review, Teodoro claims that in a loan with usurious interest both the loan and the usurious interest are void.

Alejo was required to comment on the petition but it appears that he died sometime in the latter part of 1980 and the early part of 1981. (Rollo, p. 42.) Accordingly, his children were impleaded as respondents and required to file comment which they failed to do despite notice to them.

The absence of comment on the part of the private respondents notwithstanding, We resolve the petition without any difficulty.

It is now well-settled that: "the Usury Law (Act No. 2655), by its letter and spirit, does not deprive the lender of his right to recover of the borrower the money actually loaned — this only in the case that the interest collected is usurious. The law, as it is now, does not provide for the forfeiture of the capital in favor of the debtor in usurious contract . . ." (Lopez and Javelona v. El Hogar Filipino, 47 Phil. 249, 275 [1925].)

True it is that in Briones v. Cammayo, L-23559, Oct. 4, 1971; 41 SCRA 404, Chief Justice Concepcion and now Chief Justice Fernando concurred with Justice Castro who opined that both loan and usurious interest are void. However, it must be emphasized that eight other justices maintained that only the usurious interest is void but not the principal obligation.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

WHEREFORE, finding the judgment sought to be reviewed to be in accordance with law, the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


MAKASIAR (Chairman), J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent. Judgment of trial court should be reversed. Private respondent committed a crime in violations of the Usury Law and should be penalized by bringing his recovery sum of his capital, to stamp out usurers exploiting the needy.

AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The original rule was that while the usurious loan is void this does not mean that the debtor may keep the principal received by him as loan, thus unjustly enriching himself to the damage of the creditor. The creditor has no right of action for the recovery of the stipulated interest although he may sue for the recovery of the principal loaned. (Syllabus, Go Chioco v. Martinez, 45 Phil. 256).

This was the opinion of five Justices. Justices Street and Malcolm opined that the creditor should not be allowed to recover the principal of the loan.

Said rule was reiterated in Sajo v. Gustilo, 48 Phil. 451 where it was held that the Usury Law permits the creditor to recover the principal but not the stipulated usurious interest. This could well be taken to mean a forfeiture of the right to any interest so as not to arrive at a contradiction in terms.

But in that same Sajo case, Justice Malcolm noted that the court has fallen into the habit in usury cases of allowing the creditor the legal rate of interest on the judgment for the principal from the date of the filing of the complaint.chanrobles law library

The same rule, that the principal is not forfeited in a usurious loan, was followed in Briones v. Cammayo, L-23559, October 31, 1971, 41 SCRA 404. The rule was not modified by articles 1411, 1413, 1957 and 1961 of the Civil Code.

Parenthetically, it may be stated that Presidential Decree No. 116, as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 858 and 1684, has transferred to the Monetary Board the power to fix the maximum rate of interest. Section 7 of the Law was amended by Presidential Decree No. 116. It does not provide for the forfeiture of the principal of a usurious loan.




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






November-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-65366 November 9, 1983 - JOSE B.L. REYES v. RAMON BAGATSING

    210 Phil. 457

  • G.R. Nos. L-58011 & L-58012 November 18, 1983 - VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 482

  • G.R. Nos. L-33822-23 November 22, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 499

  • G.R. No. L-47282 November 23, 1983 - CONSTANCIO ABAPO v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 529

  • G.R. No. L-57091 November 23, 1983 - PAZ S. BAENS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-23625 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO TERRADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28255 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN C. MAGTIRA

    211 Phil. 7

  • G.R. No. L-28298 November 25, 1983 - ROSITA SANTIAGO DE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 26

  • G.R. No. L-30309 November 25, 1983 - CLEMENTE BRIÑAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 37

  • G.R. No. L-32312 November 25, 1983 - AURELIO TIRO v. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 46

  • G.R. No. L-32573 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO ELEFAÑO, JR., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 50

  • G.R. No. L-33277 November 25, 1983 - JORGE C. PACIFICAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-44412 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME V. SAMBANGAN

    211 Phil. 72

  • G.R. No. L-49656 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO S. QUINTAL

    211 Phil. 79

  • G.R. No. L-51223 November 25, 1983 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 97

  • G.R. No. L-54242 November 25, 1983 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. RENE NIETO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 101

  • G.R. No. L-55436 November 25, 1983 - NICASIO BORJE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 106

  • G.R. No. L-55463 November 25, 1983 - ROBERTO V. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57518 November 25, 1983 - LUCAS BARASI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 138

  • G.R. No. L-58630 November 25, 1983 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 145

  • G.R. No. L-60744 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE A. LUCES

    211 Phil. 152

  • G.R. No. L-62032 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DUMLAO

    211 Phil. 159

  • G.R. No. L-62050 November 25, 1983 - JOSE "PEPITO" TIMONER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 166

  • G.R. No. L-62283 November 25, 1983 - CARIDAD CRUZ VDA. DE SY-QUIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 171

  • G.R. Nos. L-62845-46 November 25, 1983 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 176

  • G.R. No. L-63318 November 25, 1983 - PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC. v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 180

  • G.R. Nos. L-64207-08 November 25, 1983 - CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 187

  • G.R. No. L-40884 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CHAVEZ

    211 Phil. 194

  • G.R. No. L-48273 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN PAMINTUAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 197

  • G.R. Nos. L-62617-18 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO A. COLANA

    211 Phil. 216

  • G.R. No. L-63564 November 28, 1983 - JOB QUIAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 220

  • G.R. No. L-64013 November 28, 1983 - UNION GLASS & CONTAINER CORP., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 222

  • A.M. No. 1812-CTJ November 29, 1983 - STEPHEN L. MONSANTO v. POMPEYO L. PALARCA

    211 Phil. 237

  • B.M. No. 44 November 29, 1983 - EUFROSINA YAP TAN v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL

    211 Phil. 251

  • G.R. No. L-27873 November 29, 1983 - HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY

  • G.R. No. L-30965 November 29, 1983 - G.A MACHINERIES, INC. v. HORACIO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 267

  • G.R. No. L-33243 November 29, 1983 - ISIDRO C. NERY, ET AL. v. BERNARDO TEVES, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 278

  • G.R. No. L-34036 November 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO ESTRADA, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 282

  • G.R. No. L-35250 November 29, 1983 - MINERVA C. GUERRERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 295

  • G.R. No. L-41971 November 29, 1983 - ZONIA ANA T. SOLANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 307

  • G.R. No. L-44063 November 29, 1983 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 321

  • G.R. No. L-45461 November 29, 1983 - PONCIANO L. ALMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 342

  • G.R. No. L-50259 November 29, 1983 - FLORENTINO SALINAS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL R. NAVARRO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 351

  • G.R. No. L-51533 November 29, 1983 - PAZ L. MAKABALI v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 357

  • G.R. Nos. L-51813-14 November 29, 1983 - ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN, ET AL. v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 373

  • G.R. No. L-55160 November 29, 1983 - INOCENTES L. FERNANDEZ v. MANUEL S. ALBA

    211 Phil. 380

  • G.R. No. L-57131 November 29, 1983 - ESTELITA GRAVADOR v. JESUS M. ELBINIAS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-57314 November 29, 1983 - TEODORO SANCHEZ v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 389

  • G.R. No. L-62023 November 29, 1983 - G & S CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 392

  • G.R. No. L-63277 November 29, 1983 - PETRA VDA. DE BORROMEO v. JULIAN B. POGOY, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 396

  • G.R. No. L-64809 November 29, 1983 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-65004 November 29, 1983 - PERFECTO DEL ROSARIO, JR. v. ALFREDO A. ROSERO

    211 Phil. 406