ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137444.June 21, 1999]

GALVEZ vs. DADEA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 21 1999.

G.R. No. 137444(Minnie Galvez, assisted by her husband Edgardo Galvez vs. Lilia Dadea, assisted by her husband Bert Dadea.)

In the Court's resolution of March 17, 1999, petitioner's motion for extension of thirty (30) days from February 27, 1999 to March 29, 1999 to file a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals was denied for petitioner's failure to pay the deposit for sheriff's fee and clerk's commission in the amount of P202.00. On March 26, 1999, she filed her petition and on May 18, 1999, she moved for the reconsideration of the resolution of March 17, 1999, alleging that at the time she filed her motion for extension of time, she was not required by the docket division of the Court to pay the sheriff's fee and clerk's commission and that in any case, as soon as she received the resolution of March 17, 1999, she immediately paid the said legal fees.

After due deliberation, the Court RESOLVED to GRANT petitioner's motion for reconsideration it appearing that petitioner does not seek the issuance of a restraining order and, therefore, no sheriff's fee and clerk's commission were due. She may , thus, claim refund of the same. Nevertheless, the Court also RESOLVED to DISMISS the petition, it appearing that no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner was the owner of a house located at Block 12-F, Lot 24, Phase III-C, Kaunlaran Village, Dagat-dagatan, Caloocan City, which she previously mortgaged in order to secure a loan. As the mortgage was about to be foreclosed, she obtained a loan from respondent in the amount of P147,000.00, inclusive of 7% interest per month, in order to redeem her mortgaged house. Petitioner agreed to mortgage her house in favor of respondent after its redemption in order to secure the payment of the loan within one year from the date of the execution of the agreement. After the loan fell due, petitioner failed to pay, for which reason she was sued by respondent in the MTC, Branch 49, Caloocan City. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering petitioner to pay respondent P147,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from March 1996 until the amount was paid, P20,000,00 for attorney's fees, and P5,000.00 for litigation expenses.

On appeal to the Regional Trial Court, the decision of the trial court was affirmed. Not satisfied, petitioner brought the matter to the Court of Appeals which, in turn, affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner argues that the courts below erred in holding her liable to pay respondent the amount of P147,000.00 with interest of 12% per annum considering that her principal obligation was only P80,000,00 and that the balance of P67,000.00 was actually the advance interest for one year at the rate of 7% per month. She argues that she is only liable for P80,000.00 at 12% interest per annum.

Petitioner's contention is devoid of merit.

As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, the agreement between the parties clearly indicates the amount of the loan to be P147,000.00. This agreement is binding between the parties. It is the best evidence of what the amount of the loan is. ¹ Cuison v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 645 (1996).

Moreover, even if the claim of petitioner that the principal of the loan was P80,000.00 only and that the balance of P67,000.00 was the interest for one year at 7% per month were correct, she would still be liable to pay the total amount of P147,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid. The amount of P67,000.00 is the resulting interest on the principal in the amount of P80,000.00 at the stipulated rate of 7% per month for one (1) year, while the 12% interest is the legal interest imposed by the trial court under Art. 2212 of the Civil Code for petitioner's failure to pay the total amount of P147,000.00 on time.

Anent the award of P5,000.00 as litigation expenses, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that this issue can no longer be raised on appeal considering that it was not previously raised before the lower courts.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE