Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAMSON CHING v. CLARITA NICDAO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 183360 2014-09-08	ROLANDO C. DE LA PAZ v. L & J DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEL CASTILLO, J.
It may be raised that L&J is estopped from questioning the interest rate considering that it has been paying Rolando interest at such rate for more than two and a half years. In fact, in its pleadings before the MeTC and the RTC, L&J merely prayed for the reduction of interest from 6% monthly to 1% monthly or 12% per annum. However, in Ching v. Nicdao,[24] the daily payments of the debtor to the lender were considered as payment of the principal amount of the loan because Article 1956 was not complied with. This was notwithstanding the debtor's admission that the payments made were for the interests due. The Court categorically stated therein that "[e]stoppel cannot give validity to an act that is prohibited by law or one that is against public policy."
	GR No. 181986 2013-12-04	ELIZALDE S. CO v. LUDOLFO P. MUÑOZ BRION, J.
In Ching v. Nicdao and CA,[28] the Court ruled that an appeal is the proper remedy that a party whether the accused or the offended party may avail with respect to the judgment:If the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but the court renders judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case, the prosecution cannot appeal from the judgment of acquittal as it would place the accused in double jeopardy. However, the aggrieved party, the offended party or the accused or both may appeal from the judgment on the civil aspect of the case within the period therefor.
	GR No. 160545 2010-03-09	PRISMA CONSTRUCTION v. ARTHUR F. MENCHAVEZ BRION, J.
Article 1956 of the Civil Code specifically mandates that "no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing." Under this provision, the payment of interest in loans or forbearance of money is allowed only if: (1) there was an express stipulation for the payment of interest; and (2) the agreement for the payment of interest was reduced in writing. The concurrence of the two conditions is required for the payment of interest at a stipulated rate. Thus, we held in Tan v. Valdehueza[24] and Ching v. Nicdao[25] that collection of interest without any stipulation in writing is prohibited by law.
	GR No. 173227 2009-01-19	SEBASTIAN SIGA-AN v. ALICIA VILLANUEVA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Article 1956 of the Civil Code, which refers to monetary interest,[20] specifically mandates that no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. As can be gleaned from the foregoing provision, payment of monetary interest is allowed only if: (1) there was an express stipulation for the payment of interest; and (2) the agreement for the payment of interest was reduced in writing. The concurrence of the two conditions is required for the payment of monetary interest. Thus, we have held that collection of interest without any stipulation therefor in writing is prohibited by law.[21]