Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF ZOILO ESPIRITU v. SPS. MAXIMO LANDRITO AND PAZ LANDRITO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 210831 2014-11-26	SPS. TAGUMPAY N. ALBOS AND AIDA C. ALBOS v. SPS. NESTOR M. EMBISAN AND ILUMINADA A. EMBISAN VELASCO JR., J.
In view of the above disquisitions, We are constrained to nullify the foreclosure proceedings with respect to the mortgaged property in this case, following the doctrine in Heirs of Zoilo and Primitiva Espiritu v. Landrito.[21]
	GR No. 186550 2010-07-05	ASIAN CATHAY FINANCE v. SPS. CESARIO GRAVADOR AND NORMA DE VERA AND SPS. EMMA CONCEPCION G. DUMIGPI AND FEDERICO L. DUMIGPI NACHURA, J.
It is true that parties to a loan agreement have a wide latitude to stipulate on any interest rate in view of Central Bank Circular No. 905, series of 1982, which suspended the Usury Law ceiling on interest rate effective January 1, 1983. However, interest rates, whenever unconscionable, may be equitably reduced or even invalidated. In several cases,[10] this Court had declared as null and void stipulations on interest and charges that were found excessive, iniquitous and unconscionable.
	GR No. 168940 2009-11-24	SPS. ISAGANI CASTRO AND DIOSDADA CASTRO v. ANGELINA DE LEON TAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
In the case of Heirs of Zoilo Espiritu v. Landrito,[36] which is on all fours with the instant case, we held that: Since the Spouses Landrito, the debtors in this case, were not given an opportunity to settle their debt, at the correct amount and without the iniquitous interest imposed, no foreclosure proceedings may be instituted. A judgment ordering a foreclosure sale is conditioned upon a finding on the correct amount of the unpaid obligation and the failure of the debtor to pay the said amount. In this case, it has not yet been shown that the Spouses Landrito had already failed to pay the correct amount of the debt and, therefore, a foreclosure sale cannot be conducted in order to answer for the unpaid debt. The foreclosure sale conducted upon their failure to pay P874,125.00 in 1990 should be nullified since the amount demanded as the outstanding loan was overstated; consequently it has not been shown that the mortgagors - the Spouses Landrito, have failed to pay their outstanding obligation. x x x
	GR No. 176344 2008-08-22	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. VS.YOLANDA G. DAVID CARPIO MORALES, J.
While, as petitioner argues, the nullity of the interest rate and penalty charge does not affect its right to recover the principal amount of the loan, the public auction of the mortgaged property is nevertheless void,[37] the amount indicated as mortgage indebtedness having included excessive, iniquitous, and exorbitant interest rate and penalty charge.