This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-10-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We thus equitably reduce the monetary interest rate to 12% p.a. on the amount due computed from June 22, 1984 until full payment of the obligation. We point out in this respect that the monetary interest accrues under the terms of the loan agreement until actual payment is effected[47] for the reason that its imposition is based on the stipulation of the parties.[48] In the present case, the lower courts found that the monetary interest accrued on June 22, 1984. Incidentally, the lower courts also found that June 22, 1984 is also the spouses Lopez's date of default. | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, consignation alone would have produced the effect of payment of the rentals. The rationale for consignation is to avoid the performance of an obligation becoming more onerous to the debtor by reason of causes not imputable to him.[58] Petitioners claim that they made a written tender of payment and actually prepared vouchers for their monthly rentals. But that was insufficient to constitute a valid tender of payment. Even assuming that it was valid tender, still, it would not constitute payment for want of consignation of the amount. Well-settled is the rule that tender of payment must be accompanied by consignation in order that the effects of payment may be produced.[59] | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The payment of regular interest constitutes the price or cost of the use of money and thus, until the principal sum due is returned to the creditor, regular interest continues to accrue since the debtor continues to use such principal amount.[28] It has been held that for a debtor to continue in possession of the principal of the loan and to continue to use the same after maturity of the loan without payment of the monetary interest, would constitute unjust enrichment on the part of the debtor at the expense of the creditor.[29] | |||||