Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > December 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. 59664 December 26, 1984 - PATROCINIO SANTULAN, ET AL. v. HECTOR C. FULE, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 59664. December 26, 1984.]

PATROCINIO, ADORACION, ARTURO, CONSTANCIA and PEPITA, all surnamed SANTULAN, and minors JOCELYN, ROSAURO and ROBERTO, all surnamed SANTULAN, represented by their guardian ad litem, PATROCINIO SANTULAN, as successors-in-interest of JULIAN SANTULAN, deceased, Petitioners, v. JUDGE HECTOR C. FULE, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch III; HEIRS OF ANTONIO LUSIN, named TEODOSIA BALANZA, widow and children LEOPOLDO, ARMANDO, ALFONSO, EMILIANO, MAGDALENA, ERLINDA and ESTRELLA, all surnamed LUSIN, and Heirs of CAROLINA LUSIN LUCERO named MANOLITO LUCERO and MARIO LUCERO; THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES and DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Respondents.

Tahimik J. Filio and Isidoro Crisostomo, for Petitioners.

Romulo C. Felizmeña for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; EXACTION OF INTEREST IN CASE AT BAR IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUST. — The order of respondent Judge Fule directing the heirs of Santulan to reimburse the heirs of Lusin the sum of P30,000.00 as the value of the improvements "with legal interest" from 1955 until paid is devoid of legal basis. It is not sanctioned by Article 2209 of the Civil Code which provides that "if the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest which is six percent per annum." Santulan’s obligation to reimburse Lusin the value of his improvements was intended to avoid unjust enrichment. Interest was not demanded by Lusin when the case was pending in the administrative agencies and in the courts. The final judgment of the Supreme Court, which is the law of the case did not provide for interest. There is no reason for the trial court to add interest to the judgment. See Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., 114 Phil. 1219. The exaction of interest is not only illegal. It is also manifestly unjust under the facts of the protracted controversy. Lusin and his heirs have received the fruits of the disputed land since they have been in possession thereof. As noted in Trillana v. Manansala, 96 Phil. 865, no interest is to be satisfied because the fruits gathered by the possessor are considered as interest.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This case is about the collection of legal interest on the sum of P30,000 as the value of improvements on a foreshore land, which interest was not included in this Court’s decision of December 15, 1977 in Santulan v. Executive Secretary, L-28021, 80 SCRA 548.

In that decision this Court affirmed the order of the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources dated December 14, 1954 which gave due course to the lease application of Julian Santulan provided that he reimbursed Antonio Lusin the appraised value of the existing improvements (pp. 574-5, 80 SCRA).

When the case was remanded to the trial court, Judge Fule in his order of September 2, 1981 directed the heirs of Santulan to reimburse the heirs of Lusin the sum of P30,000 as the value of the improvements "with legal interest" from 1955 until paid. He affirmed said order in his order of January 13, 1982. Santulan’s heirs appealed under Republic Act No. 5440 from the order imposing 6% legal interest.

We hold that the order is devoid of legal basis. It is obviously not sanctioned by article 2209 of the Civil Code which provides that "if the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent per annum."cralaw virtua1aw library

Santulan’ s obligation to reimburse Lusin the value of his improvements was intended to avoid unjust enrichment. Interest was not demanded by Lusin when the case was pending in the administrative agencies and in the courts. This Court’s final judgment, which is the law of the case, did not provide for interest. There is no reason for the trial court to add interest to the judgment. See Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas Bus. Co., 114 Phil. 1219.

The exaction of interest is not only illegal. It is also manifestly unjust under the facts of this protracted controversy. Lusin and his heirs have received the fruits of the disputed land since they have been in possession thereof. As noted in Trillana v. Manansala, 96 Phil. 865, no interest is to be satisfied because the fruits gathered by the possessor are considered as interest.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the orders in question are modified and the imposition of legal interest on the amount to be reimbursed to the heirs of Lusin is reversed and set aside. Costs against respondent Lusin.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





December-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-26969 December 19, 1984 - CARPIO PHUA, ET AL. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

  • G.R. Nos. 55245-46 December 19, 1984 - JESUS A. RAMOS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, BRANCH I, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55684 December 19, 1984 - CHRYSLER PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60015 December 19, 1984 - PATRICK CHUA PENG HIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66782 December 20, 1984 - ELIODORO PONIO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1613 December 26, 1984 - ANDRES B. MORALES, ET AL. v. DIONISIO MANEJA, JR.

  • A.C. No. 1741 December 26, 1984 - AGUSTIN S. VITUALLA, SR. v. WENCESLAO I. PONFERRADA

  • A.C. No. 1858 December 26, 1984 - ANATALIO SOLIDUM v. CESAR STA. MARIA

  • G.R. No. L-27735 December 26, 1984 - LAMBERTO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-30805 December 26, 1984 - DOMINGO ANG v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37652 December 26, 1984 - VIRGINIA B. PRADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38308 December 26, 1984 - MILAGROS DONIO-TEVES, ET AL. v. CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42505 December 26, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43280 December 26, 1984 - FLORENTINO R. MATTA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43554 December 26, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45292 December 26, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PRUDENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47940 December 26, 1984 - HEIRS OF MORO BALABAGAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48070 December 26, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MEDARDO C. CASTELO

  • G.R. No. L-48669 December 26, 1984 - PERFECTO DE VERA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49395 December 26, 1984 - GREEN VALLEY POULTRY & ALLIED PRODUCTS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50340 December 26, 1984 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51084 December 26, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO F. DUNCA

  • G.R. No. 52064 December 26, 1984 - JULIANA CARAGAY-LAYNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52305 December 26, 1984 - ANGELA MARTIR VDA. DE GUANZON v. ODON C. YRAD, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55252 December 26, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL ABUCAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55950 December 26, 1984 - LOURDES R. RAMOS, ET AL. v. OUR LADY OF PEACE SCHOOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58530 December 26, 1984 - CONCORDIA ASTORGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59221 December 26, 1984 - ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59664 December 26, 1984 - PATROCINIO SANTULAN, ET AL. v. HECTOR C. FULE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59758 December 26, 1984 - ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60092 December 26, 1984 - ENCARNACION C. LUMANTAS, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61623 December 26, 1984 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62095 December 26, 1984 - ELIGIO C. DAJAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62925 December 26, 1984 - MANILA BANKING CORP. v. TMBC EMPLOYEES COUNCIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63510 December 26, 1984 - AURELIO ALEMAN v. MELECIO GENATO

  • G.R. No. 64261 December 26, 1984 - JOSE BURGOS, SR., ET AL. v. CHIEF OF STAFF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65334 December 26, 1984 - MUNICIPALITY OF ANTIPOLO v. AQUILINA ZAPANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65424 December 26, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO GERMINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67145 December 26, 1984 - AUREA M. NERONA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 68568 December 26, 1984 - GIMENEZ STOCKBROKERAGE AND CO., INC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.