Case Digest (G.R. No. 47070)
Facts:
Miguel Mulet v. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 47070, July 19, 1941, Supreme Court En Banc, Moran, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Miguel Mulet was prosecuted by The People of the Philippines for violation of the Usury Law; he was convicted in the trial court and the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.In November 1928, Anastacio Cuizon borrowed P200 from petitioner at an agreed rate of 30% per annum and signed a receipt for P260. When Cuizon failed to pay at maturity, Mulet caused him to execute a deed of sale with pacto de retro over Cuizon’s house and lot (assessed at P1,500 and P130 respectively) reciting P260 as the consideration. Upon another failure to pay one year later a new deed was executed reciting P390 as consideration (P260 plus one year’s interest at 50% = P130). At the maturity of that renewed obligation on September 26, 1931, Cuizon paid P130 interest and another deed reciting P390 was executed.
On the P390 amount, Mulet charged 50% interest (P195); at the September 26, 1932 maturity Cuizon paid P105 on account and a new document recited P480 (P390 plus unpaid interest P90). Shortly before September 1934 Mulet reduced interest on P480 to 25% (P240 for two years); Cuizon paid P170, leaving P70 unpaid, and a subsequent deed recited P550 (P480 + P70). After further default Mulet consolidated title and on July 3, 1936 conveyed the property to Ricardo D. Omega for P580; Omega on the same date executed a document obligating himself to resell the properties to Cuizon within five years for P580 plus repairs/expenses.
Mulet was prosecuted on November 18, 1936. He was convicted by the trial court; the Court of Appeals affirmed. A motion for reconsideration was denied and Mulet appealed to the Supreme Court. In his petition Mulet chiefly resisted returning P589 (the usurious interest amount found by the lower ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the series of transactions and deed(s) with pacto de retro constitute usury rendering the contracts illicit and subject to nullity?
- What is the proper remedy — must petitioner return the sum found as usurious interest (P589), or must he restore the house and lot (or pay their assessed value)...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)