This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-10-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| There is undue influence when a person takes improper advantage of his power over the will of another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice.[16] For undue influence to be present, the influence exerted must have so overpowered or subjugated the mind of a contracting party as to destroy his free agency, making him express the will of another rather than his own.[17] | |||||
|
2009-04-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| There is undue influence when a person takes improper advantage of his power over the will of another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice.[24] One who alleges any defect, or the lack of consent to a contract by reason of fraud or undue influence, must establish by full, clear and convincing evidence, such specific acts that vitiated the party's consent; otherwise, the latter's presumed consent to the contract prevails.[25] For undue influence to be present, the influence exerted must have so overpowered or subjugated the mind of a contracting party as to destroy his free agency, making him express the will of another rather than his own.[26] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| [18] Carpo v. Chua, G.R. Nos. 150773 and 153599, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 471. | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| While respondents were purportedly financially distressed, there is no clear showing that those acting on their behalf had been deprived of their free agency when they executed the promissory notes representing respondents' refinanced obligations to DBP. For undue influence to be present, the influence exerted must have so overpowered or subjugated the mind of a contracting party as to destroy the latter's free agency, making such party express the will of another rather than its own. The alleged lingering financial woes of a debtor per se cannot be equated with the presence of undue influence.[44] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Incidentally, the CA sustained the validity of a loan obligation but annulled the mortgage securing it on the ground of failure of consideration. This is erroneous. A mortgage is a mere accessory contract and its validity would depend on the validity of the loan secured by it.[54] Hence, the consideration of the mortgage contract is the same as that of the principal contract from which it receives life, and without which it cannot exist as an independent contract. [55] The debtor cannot escape the consequences of the mortgage contract once the validity of the loan is upheld. | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The factual milieu of Carpo vs. Chua[16] is closely analogous to the present case. In the Carpo case, petitioners therein contracted a loan in the amount of P175,000.00 from respondents therein, payable within six months with an interest rate of 6% per month. The loan was not paid upon demand. Therein petitioners claimed that following the Court's ruling in Medel vs. Court of Appeals,[17] the rate of interest of 6% per month or 72% per annum as stipulated in the principal loan agreement is null and void for being excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. The Court then held thus:In a long line of cases, this Court has invalidated similar stipulations on interest rates for being excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. In Solangon v. Salazar, we annulled the stipulation of 6% per month or 72% per annum interest on a P60,000.00 loan. In Imperial v. Jaucian, we reduced the interest rate from 16% to 1.167% per month or 14% per annum. In Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, we equitably reduced the agreed 3% per month or 36% per annum interest to 1% per month or 12% per annum interest. The 10% and 8% interest rates per month on a P1,000,000.00 loan were reduced to 12% per annum in Cuaton v. Salud. Recently, this Court, in Arrofo v. Quino, reduced the 7% interest per month on a P15,000.00 loan amounting to 84% interest per annum to 18% per annum. | |||||