Case Digest (G.R. No. 233974)
Facts:
In Catalina F. Isla, Elizabeth Isla, and Gilbert F. Isla v. Genevera P. Estorga (G.R. No. 233974, decided July 2, 2018), the petitioners obtained on December 6, 2004 a loan of ₱100,000.00 from respondent, payable within six months to one year with a stipulated interest of ten percent per month. To secure the obligation, a real estate mortgage was annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 132673 covering a parcel in Pasay City registered in the name of Edilberto Isla, Catalina’s spouse. When the petitioners failed to pay, respondent sought barangay intervention and procured a Kasulatan ng Pautang dated December 8, 2005. After continued default, respondent sent a demand letter on November 16, 2006 and, upon nonpayment, filed a judicial foreclosure petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 112, on July 19, 2007. The petitioners opposed, contending that the mortgage was invalid since they did not own the property outright and that the ten percent montCase Digest (G.R. No. 233974)
Facts:
- Loan agreement and security
- On December 6, 2004, petitioners obtained a P100,000 loan from respondent, payable within six months to one year, at 10% interest per month.
- As security, they constituted a real estate mortgage over a Pasay City parcel (TCT No. 132673) titled in Edilberto Isla (petitioners’ relative).
- Defaults and extrajudicial steps
- Petitioners failed to pay; barangay mediation produced a Kasulatan ng Pautang dated December 8, 2005, which remained unfulfilled.
- Respondent sent a demand letter on November 16, 2006; non‐compliance led to a Petition for Judicial Foreclosure filed July 19, 2007, before the RTC.
- Trial court proceedings
- Petitioners contended the mortgage was invalid (property not theirs) and the 10% monthly rate was grossly unconscionable.
- RTC Decision (December 10, 2012) granted foreclosure: (a) held the mortgage valid and annotated on title; (b) made petitioners solidarily liable for P100,000 plus 12% per annum interest from December 2007 until full payment; (c) awarded P20,000 attorney’s fees; (d) provided for foreclosure if unpaid within six months.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in imposing 12% per annum interest on the principal obligation until full payment?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in awarding P20,000 attorney’s fees without factual, legal, and equitable justification stated in its decision?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)