Title
Anchor Savings Bank vs. Pinzman Realty and Development Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 192304
Decision Date
Aug 13, 2014
A 1997 loan secured by a mortgage led to foreclosure after default. The Supreme Court annulled the sale, ruling usurious interest rates invalid without written agreement, and upheld recomputation at 12% legal interest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192304)

Background of the Loan Agreement

In December 1997, the respondents obtained a loan of P3,000,000 from the petitioner, which was documented through a Promissory Note and a Disclosure Statement detailing the terms of the loan. The loan stipulated various installment payments that included exorbitant charges: a late payment fee of 5% per month, attorney's fees amounting to 25%, and liquidated damages of 25% for any unpaid installments.

Payment Defaults and Foreclosure

After disbursing the loan proceeds to MaAalac, the respondents issued three checks corresponding to the installments; however, only the first check cleared, leaving an outstanding balance of P3,012,252.32. Subsequent notices of extrajudicial sale were issued, culminating in a foreclosure sale where the bank emerged as the highest bidder for the disputed properties. The Statement of Account issued by the petitioner reflected a sizable increase in the amounts due, totaling P12,525,673.44 as of October 29, 1999.

Legal Proceedings Initiated by Respondents

Respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner in September 2000 seeking annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings claiming that the amounts demanded were excessively inflated. They alleged that the actual amount owed should have been significantly lower based on a lawful interest rate.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court, in a Decision dated March 16, 2007, dismissed the complaint, noting the private respondents did not contest the procedural legality of the foreclosure and had not taken steps to enjoin the foreclosure sale despite knowing of the alleged usurious interest charges.

Reversal by the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's ruling, emphasizing that the loan agreement failed to specify an interest rate and thus deemed the unilateral imposition of a 30.33% interest rate as excessive and against public policy. The appellate court annulled the foreclosure sale but allowed the bank to pursue a recomputed foreclosure proceeding based on the valid principal amount.

Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that the absence of a stipulated interest rate did not equate to the absence of an agreement on interest payment. They claimed the inconsistencies in the Notice of Sale did not invalidate the foreclosure. Conversely, the respondents argued against the imposition of high interest rates, claiming the corresponding foreclosure was disparaged by usury.

Supreme Court's Resolution and Rationale

The Supreme Court reinforced the legal principle that foreclosure sales resulting from usurious loans lack legal effect. Quoting precedents, the Court undersc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.