This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| PMO also denies that a unilateral increase in the interest rates on the loans caused the substantial increase in the indebtedness of respondents and points out that the promissory notes themselves specifically provided for the rates of interest as well as penalty and other charges which were merely applied on respondents' outstanding obligations. It should be noted, however, that at the time of the transaction, Act No. 2655, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 116 (Usury Law), was still in full force and effect. Basic is the rule that the laws in force at the time the contract is made governs the effectivity of its provisions.[60] Section 2 of the Usury Law specifically provides as follows:Sec. 2. No person or corporation shall directly or indirectly take or receive in money or other property, real or personal, or choses in action, a higher rate of interest or a greater sum or value, including commissions, premiums, fines and penalties, for the loan or renewal thereof or forbearance of money, goods, or credits, where such loan or renewal or forbearance is secured in whole or in part by a mortgage upon real estate the title to which is duly registered, or by any document conveying such real estate or interest therein, than twelve per centum per annum or the maximum rate prescribed by the Monetary Board and in force at the time the loan or renewal thereof or forbearance is granted: Provided, that the rate of interest under this section or the maximum rate of interest that may be prescribed by the monetary board under this section may likewise apply to loans secured by other types of security as may be specified by the Monetary Board. | |||||
|
2005-10-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| According to respondents' witness, Conchita Cotoner, on the second week of June 1989, two credit investigators of petitioner visited the subject property to investigate concerning the occupants on the property. They were promptly informed by the witness, who was the caretaker of the property, that the same had been sold to respondents by the Garcia spouses in May of 1988. Clearly, petitioner, through its agents, had been informed of the earlier sale of the subject property to the respondents. Since the Garcia spouses no longer had the right to alienate the property, no valid mortgage was ever constituted on it.[15] Since the mortgage contract was void, the foreclosure of the property was ineffectual as well.[16] Sadly, petitioner, despite having knowledge of the unregistered sale still accepted the mortgage and to our mind, in bad faith, purchased the same at the foreclosure sale. | |||||