Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 122079, June 27, 1997, 19 97, 274 SCRA 614.
FACTS: Home Savings Bank and Trust Company (now Insular Life granted to t!e Con"ep"ions a #$%&''%''''' loan T!e latter e)e"uted in favor of t!e *ank a promissory note and a real estate mortgage over t!eir property in San +uan% ,etro ,anila T!ereafter% t!e *ank unilaterally in"reased t!e interest rate from $-. to /$. effe"tive $0 Fe*ruary $12'3 from from /$. /$. to 4'. 4'. effe effe"ti "tive ve $0 5" 5"to to*er *er $12&3 $12&3 and and from from 4'. 4'. to 42. 42. effe effe"ti "tive ve $0 6ove 6ovem*e m*err $12& $12& In $127 $127%% t!e *ank8 *ank8s s #resi #reside dent nt deman demanded ded from from t!e t!e Con"e Con"ep" p"io ions ns payment of t!e arrearages% *ut t!e latter failed to pay T!e *ank finally filed wit! t!e S!eriff of #asig City a petition for e)tra9udi"ial fore"losure of t!e real estate mortgage t!at t!ey e)e"uted A noti"e of sale was issued on $7 ,ay $12- T!e Con"ep"ions% Con"ep"ions% una* una*le le to e)er e)er"is "ise e t!eir t!eir rig!t rig!t of redem redempt ption ion%% lost lost t!e prope property rty to t!e *ank *ank w!i"! w!i"! "onsolidated t!e title over t!e property and !ad a new "ertifi"ate of title issued in t!e name of Home Savings Bank and Trust Company In $120% t!e *ank e)e"uted a eed of A*solute Sale in favor of Asa9e ;ealty Corporation and a new "ertifi"ate of title was issued ,eanw!ile% on /1 +uly $120% t!e Con"ep"ions filed an a"tion against Home Savings Bank% for t!e "an"ellation of t!e fore"losure sale% t!e de"laration of nullity of t!e "onsolidation of title in favor of t!e *ank% and t!e de"laration of nullity of t!e unilateral in"reases of t!e interest rates on t!eir loan ISS<=: >56 t!e es"alation "lause in t!eir mortgage "ontra"t valid? H=L: Some "ontra"ts "ontain w!at is known as an @es"alator "lause%8 w!i"! is defined as one in w!i"! t!e "ontra"t fi)es a *ase pri"e *ut "ontains a provision t!at in t!e event of spe"ified "ost in"reases% t!e seller or "ontra"tor may raise t!e pri"e up to a fi)ed per"entage of t!e *ase Atta"ks on su"! a "lause !ave usually *een *ased on t!e "laim t!at% t!at% *e"aus *e"ause e of t!e t!e open open pri"e pri"ep prov rovisi ision% on% t!e "ontra "ontra"t "t was was too indefi indefinit nite e to *e enfor"ea*le and did not eviden"e an a"tual meeting of t!e minds of t!e parties% or t!at t!e arrangement left t!e pri"e to *e determined ar*itrarily *y one party so t!at t!e "ontra"t la"ked mutuality mutuality However% However% t!e SC generally up!eld its validity 6onet!eless% 6onet!eless% an es"alation "lause at *en"! w!i"! gives t!e *ank un*ridled rig!t to unila nilate tera rall lly y upw upwardl ardly y ad9u ad9ust st t!e t!e inte intere rest st on priv privat ate e resp respon onde dent nts8 s8 loan loan is un"ons"iona*le% as it would "ompletely take away from mortgagees t!e rig!t to assent to an importan importantt modifi"a modifi"ation tion in t!eir t!eir agreeme agreement% nt% and would negate t!e element element of mutuality in "ontra"ts anco!ilipino Savin"s an# $ort"a"e an% vs. &on. Navarro an# 'el (alle, (alle, G.R. No. )*46+91, 2 Jul- 197, 1+2 SCRA 46.
FACTS:
el alle% t!e *orrower% o*tained a loan se"ured *y a real estate mortgage from Ban"o Filipino amounting to #&$%4'''' Said loan still !ad more t!an 04' days to run *y +anuary /% $10-% t!e date w!en CI;C56 Ban"o Filipino may validly in"rease t!e rate of its interest pursuant to t!e es"alation "lause in t!e "ontra"t and in lig!t of Central Bank Cir"ular 6o &1&% w!i"! was given a retroa"tive effe"t in t!is "ase? H=L: T!e su*stantial Duestion in t!is "ase is not really w!et!er t!e =s"alation Clause is a valid or void stipulation% *ut w!et!er t!e *ank "an in"rease t!e interest rate on t!e L5A6 from $/. to $0. per annum under t!e =s"alation Clause T!e SC !eld in t!e negative T!e es"alation "lause in t!e "ontra"t provides t!at t!e interest rate may *e in"reased Ein t!e event a laws!ould *e ena"ted in"reasing t!e lawful rate of interest t!at may *e "!arged on t!is parti"ular kind of loanE Said "lause was dependent on an in"rease of rate made *y ElawE alone Cir"ular 6o &1& of t!e ,onetary Board was not t!e ElawE "ontemplated *y t!e parties% nor s!ould said Cir"ular *e !eld as appli"a*le to loans se"ured *y registered real estate in t!e a*sen"e of any su"! spe"ifi" indi"ation and in "ontravention of t!e poli"y *e!ind t!e
/ilippine National an% vs. Court of Appeals an# Arosio /a#illa, G.R. No. 0, 0 April 1991, 196 SCRA +6.
FACTS: In +uly $12/% #adilla applied for and was granted *y #6B% a "redit line of 4/$2 million% se"ured *y a real estate mortgage% for a term of two (/ years% wit! $2. interest per annum However% in a span of four mont!s% #6B in"reased t!e interest rate% from $2. to &2. #adilla% al*eit "omplying wit! t!e *anks "onditions% registered !is protests as regards t!e in"rease in t!e rates #6 insists t!at said in"reases are valid and in pursuant to t!e es"alation "lause in t!e "ontra"t w!i"! was a""eded to *y #adilla ISS<=: >!et!er t!e *ank% wit!in t!e term of t!e loan w!i"! it granted to t!e private respondent% may unilaterally "!ange or in"rease t!e interest rate stipulated t!erein at will and as often as it pleased? H=L:
T!e SC !eld in t!e negative Alt!oug! Se"tion / of # 6o $$- aut!ories t!e ,onetary Board to pres"ri*e t!e ma)imum rate or rates of interest for loans or renewal t!ereof and to "!ange su"! rate or rates w!enever warranted *y prevailing e"onomi" and so"ial "onditions% it e)pressly provides t!at Esu"! "!anges s!all not *e made oftener t!an on"e every twelve mont!sE In t!is "ase% #6B% over t!e o*9e"tion of t!e private respondent% and wit!out aut!ority from t!e ,onetary Board% wit!in a period of only four (& mont!s% in"reased t!e $2. interest rate on t!e private respondents loan o*ligation t!ree (4 times As pointed out *y CA% w!ile #adilla did agree t!at t!e interest rate may *e in"reased during t!e life of t!e "ontra"t% su"! in"rease must *e wit!in t!e rate allowed *y law% *ut% no law was ever passed in +uly to 6ovem*er $12& in"reasing t!e interest rates on loans or renewals t!ereof Hen"e% t!e su*seDuent in"reases from t!e $2. interest rate *en"!mark is !eld invalid
/3 v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 9717, Januar- 10, 1994, 299 SCRA 22
FACTS: B#I filed wit! ;TC #asig a "omplaint against ;u*y Industrial Corporation (;!et!er petitioner% w!i"! is a se"ured "reditor of respondent ;
uintos vs. ec% G.R. No. )*46240, Nov. , 199, 69 /il 10
FACTS:
Be"k is a tenant of uintos In t!eir "ontra"t of lease renewal% it was stipulated t!erein t!at uintos gratuitously granted Be"k t!e use of furniture t!at were spe"ified% provided t!at t!e latter would return it to !im on"e t!e former reDuired !im to do so In $14-% uintos sold t!e property to t!e Lopees >!en uintos was demanding t!e furniture *a"k% Be"k stated t!at !e "ould not return t!e t!ree gas !eaters and & ele"tri" lamps to uintos until t!e end of t!eir lease "ontra"t Before va"ating t!e !ouse% Be"k "onsigned t!e furniture to t!e s!eriff w!en uintos refused to re"eive all t!e furniture on t!e premise t!at t!ey werent "omplete ISS<=: >!at kind of "ontra"t e)ists and w!at are Be"ks o*ligations in relation to t!e said "ontra"t? H=L: A "ontra"t of "ommodatumparti"ulary% t!at of pre"ariume)ists In pre"arium% t!e permissive use of a mova*le was granted *y t!e *ailor to t!e *ailee on t!e "ondition t!at t!e *ailor may demand t!e property loaned at will I6 t!is "ase% t!e *aliees o*ligation is to return t!e property loaned In t!is "ase% Be"k was ordered to deliver to t!e residen"e of uintos all t!e furniture All e)penses in relation to t!e safekeeping and delivery of t!e furniture s!all *e *orne *y defendant 5ata vs. 3ntere#iate Appellate Court et. Al.G.R. No. )*72714, June 29, 199, 174 SCRA 464
FACTS: =mata pur"!ased a "ar on installment from iolago ,otor wit! a down payment of # $&%12/'' and e)e"uted in favor of t!e seller a promissory note and a "!attel mortgage over t!e "ar as se"urity for t!e payment of t!e note T!e total amount t!at t!e petitioner was supposed to pay was # 0/%$2-''% wit! # 70%/'&'' as t!e *alan"e after dedu"ting t!e down payment T!e total amount paya*le was # //%/&-'' more t!an t!e Elist "as! pri"eE of # &1%1&''' for said ve!i"le iolago endorsed t!e promissory note and assigned t!e "!attel mortgage to Filinvest Credit Corp upon its payment of t!e unpaid *alan"e of t!e "ars list pri"e T!ree years later% Filinvest assigned to private respondent Servi"ewide Spe"ialists% In" t!e remaining installment *alan"e Alleging nonpayment of five (7 "onse"utive installments% Servi"ewide initiated said "ase in t!e ;TC for a writ of replevin or for t!e payment *y petitioner of t!e remaining *alan"e plus $&. interest per annum until fully paid =mata disputes t!e vera"ity of t!e promissory note% stating t!at t!e same was made t!roug! fraud% de"eit% tri"kery and misrepresentation3 said "!attel mortgage was e)e"uted to se"ure !is remaining *alan"e wit! Filinvest% and t!at !e !ad already paid% al*eit overpaid% !is *alan"e He avers t!at t!e e)or*itant rates given *y Filnvest is violative of t!e 56 t!e Law in
H=L:
