Belo v. Dimas-San Juan

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242718. February 18, 2019.]

ADORACION Z. BELO, petitioner,vs. ANITA DIMAS-SAN JUAN, REYNAN SAN JUAN, RYAN SAN JUAN AND ANNALYN SAN JUAN, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 18, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242718 — Adoracion Z. Belo, petitioner, vs. Anita Dimas-San Juan, Reynan San Juan, Ryan San Juan and Annalyn San Juan, respondents.

The Motion for Extension of Time filed by petitioner seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on November 13, 2018 within which to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED.

Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 109419 committed any reversible error.

As correctly observed by the CA, circumstances in the case at bench reflect badges of a pactum commissorium even without a stipulation for a creditor's automatic appropriation of the mortgaged property. It highlighted the following: the non-foreclosure and the fact that the dacion en pago and the mortgage contract being inextricably linked because: a) the dacion en pago contract was executed by reason of the same loan extended by petitioner to the respondents and; b) the subject of the dacion en pago was the same property used as collateral for the same loan, without any other additional consideration.

In Sps. Martires v. Chua, 1 we stated why foreclosure is preferred, viz.:

Considering that the disputed property was mortgaged to secure the payment of [the mortgagor's] obligation, the most logical and practical thing that she could have done, if she is unable to pay her debt, is to wait for it to be foreclosed. She stands to lose less of the value of the subject property if the same is foreclosed, rather than if the title thereto is directly transferred to [the mortgagees]. This is so because in foreclosure, unlike in the present case where ownership of the property was assigned to [the mortgagees], [the mortgagor] can still claim the balance from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale, if there be any. In such a case, she could still recover a portion of the value of the subject property rather than losing it completely by assigning its ownership to [the mortgagees]. 2

Moreover, even granting that the issue of usurious interest was merely raised belatedly on appeal, it is worth emphasizing that an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to pass upon matters not assigned as errors in the appeal if they are necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice. 3 Hence, we find proper the reduction motu proprio by the appellate court of the stipulated interest rate for being contrary to morals, blatantly iniquitous, exorbitant, and unconscionable.

However, the CA ordered in its dispositive portion that the respondents were to pay petitioner Adoracion Z. Belo the principal amount of P1,600,000.00, plus interest of 12% per annum until fully paid. To this, we find it necessary to modify the legal interest rate imposed pursuant to jurisprudence and Circular No. 799, series of 2013 of the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas4 which took effect on July 1, 2013.

Hence, in light of prevailing rules and jurisprudence, 5 we hold that the 12% per annum interest on the principal amount reckoned from July 13, 2010, which is the execution of the promissory note, shall be only until June 30, 2013. Beginning July 1, 2013, the legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the total amount shall be imposed until fully paid.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM the assailed July 20, 2018 Decision and October 18, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 109419 with MODIFICATION that from July 1, 2013, the legal interest to be paid is 6% per annum of the total amount due until the full payment thereof.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. 707 Phil. 34 (2013).

2.Id. at 50.

3.Mendoza vs. Bautista, 493 Phil. 804, 813 (2005).

4. Issued on June 21, 2013; It provides that the rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum.

5.As elucidated in ECE Realty and Development, Inc. vs. Hernandez, 740 Phil. 789 (2014).