Case Digest (G.R. No. 185757)
Facts:
On March 25, 2003, Ma. Luisa A. Pineda (petitioner) and Virginia Zuaiga vda. de Vega (respondent) executed a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-339215 as security for a purported P 500,000.00 loan at an 8% monthly interest rate. According to petitioner’s June 10, 2005 complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, respondent failed to pay both principal and interest upon maturity, resulting in an alleged accumulated interest of P 232,000.00 by May 2005. Respondent denied receiving any P 500,000.00 loan and asserted procedural defects, including lack of barangay conciliation and failure to join her husband. The RTC, on April 30, 2015, found in favor of petitioner, ruling that only P 200,000.00 was originally loaned, applying a 12% per annum legal interest rate from extrajudicial demand on September 3, 2004, and awarding P 50,000.00 nominal damages and P 30,000.00 attorney’s fees, with foreclosure in deCase Digest (G.R. No. 185757)
Facts:
- Parties and case background
- Petitioner Ma. Luisa A. Pineda (lender) filed Civil Case No. 526-M-2005 against respondent Virginia ZuAiga vda. de Vega (borrower) on June 10, 2005 before RTC Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 17.
- Petitioner invoked Rule 45 certiorari review of the CA’s Decision (March 21, 2017) and Resolution (August 30, 2017) in CA-G.R. CV No. 106404, which reversed the RTC and dismissed her complaint.
- Loan and mortgage agreements
- On March 25, 2003, respondent allegedly borrowed ₱500,000, payable within one year, with an agreed interest rate of 8% per month, secured by a real estate mortgage over TCT No. T-339215 (the “2003 Agreement”).
- Petitioner alleged respondent defaulted on maturity; as of May 2005, unpaid accumulated interest was ₱232,000; she sent a demand letter dated August 4, 2004, claimed received September 7, 2004.
- Respondent’s defenses and petitioner’s admissions
- Respondent denied receipt of ₱500,000 loan, argued unconscionable interest, lack of barangay conciliation, and failure to join her husband; she claimed the ₱500,000 reflected an earlier ₱200,000 loan.
- Petitioner admitted original loan of ₱200,000 in 2000 at 3% per month, actual interest charged was 4%; the “undated Agreement” securing ₱200,000 was separate from the 2003 Agreement.
- RTC proceedings and decision
- RTC found (a) existence of loan and mortgage, (b) undated Agreement silent on interest → legal rate 12% p.a., (c) 2003 Agreement’s rate unconscionable → illegal, (d) non-joinder of husband and lack of barangay conciliation non-jurisdictional.
- RTC ordered respondent to pay ₱200,000 plus 12% p.a. from September 3, 2004, ₱50,000 nominal damages, ₱30,000 attorney’s fees; in default, mortgaged property to be foreclosed. RTC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
- CA proceedings and decision
- CA reversed RTC: petitioner failed to prove extrajudicial demand (registry return card not formally offered); respondent not in default; dismissed complaint.
- CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Issues:
- Procedural questions
- Was the petition for review timely filed?
- Does the petition raise only questions of law, as required by Rule 45?
- Substantive question
- Was there sufficient proof of extrajudicial demand to establish respondent’s default?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)