Case Digest (G.R. No. 144222-24)
Facts:
B. J. Server v. Ricardo Sikat, G.R. No. L-24695, October 26, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner B. J. Server (plaintiff in the trial court) sued respondent Ricardo Sikat (defendant in the trial court) to collect an obligation and foreclose a mortgage. On January 16, 1945, Sikat obtained from Server a loan allegedly in Japanese occupation currency; to secure it he executed a mortgage and, together with Jose de Luna Gonzales, signed a promissory note promising to pay "Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) ... in the legal Philippine Currency circulating in the Philippines at the time of payment, within two (2) years counted from and after the termination of the hostilities in the Philippines between United States of America and the Empire of Japan."Server sent a reminder on October 15, 1947, and formally demanded payment on December 7, 1953. When Sikat refused to pay, Server filed Civil Case No. 25997 in the Court of First Instance of Manila for collection and foreclosure, alleging the indebtedness had become due two years after cessation of hostilities. Sikat answered, denying the authenticity/effect of the documents, asserting they were executed against his will, and claiming an oral contemporaneous agreement that the loan could be paid during the Japanese occupation (in occupation notes) subject to adjustment. He also pleaded that the contract was usurious, asserting an exchange disparity between occupation notes and Philippine currency.
The trial court found the written mortgage and promissory note controlling, rejected the asserted oral agreement and the usury claim, and rendered judgment for Server: payment of P6,000 with legal interest from January 16, 1945, attorney’s fees equal to 10% of the indebtedness, foreclosure upon default, deficiency and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 28440-R) reversed, finding the contemporaneous oral agreement proved and holding that the debt should be revalued under the Ballantyne schedule applicable to obligations payable during the Japanese occupation; it ordered Sikat to pa...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals' factual finding—that a contemporaneous oral agreement allowed repayment during the Japanese occupation—supported by the evidence?
- Even absent that oral agreement, did the promissory note permit repayment during the occupation such that the indebtedness must be revalued under t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)