Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. ESTE DEL SOL MOUNTAIN RESERVE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 171127 2015-03-11	NOEL CASUMPANG v. NELSON CORTEJO BRION, J.
The settled rule is that the Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited only to the review of pure questions of law. It is not the Court's function to inquire on the veracity of the appellate court's factual findings and conclusions; this Court is not a trier of facts.[31]
	GR No. 180144 2014-09-24	LEONARDO BOGNOT v. RRI LENDING CORPORATION BRION, J.
As a rule, the Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to the review of pure questions of law.[14] Appreciation of evidence and inquiry on the correctness of the appellate court's factual findings are not the functions of this Court; we are not a trier of facts.[15]
	GR No. 191240 2014-07-30	CRISTINA B. CASTILLO v. PHILLIP R. SALVADOR PERALTA, J.
The issue of whether petitioner gave respondent the amount of US$100,000.00 is factual. While we are not a trier of facts, there are instances, however, when we are called upon to re-examine the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals and weigh, after considering the records of the case, which of the conflicting findings is more in accord with law and justice.[79] Such is the case before us.
	GR No. 179665 2013-04-03	SOLID BUILDERS v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As debtor-mortgagors, however, SBI and MFII do not have a right to prevent the creditor-mortgagee CBC from foreclosing on the mortgaged properties simply on the basis of alleged "usurious, exorbitant and confiscatory rate of interest."[30] First, assuming that the interest rate agreed upon by the parties is usurious, the nullity of the stipulation of usurious interest does not affect the lender's right to recover the principal loan, nor affect the other terms thereof.[31] Thus, in a usurious loan with mortgage, the right to foreclose the mortgage subsists, and this right can be exercised by the creditor upon failure by the debtor to pay the debt due.[32]
	GR NO. 169617 2007-04-03	HEIRS OF ZOILO ESPIRITU v. SPS. MAXIMO LANDRITO AND PAZ LANDRITO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Stipulation authorizing iniquitous or unconscionable interests are contrary to morals, if not against the law. Under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, these contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning. They cannot be ratified nor the right to set up their illegality as a defense be waived.[22] The nullity of the stipulation on the usurious interest does not, however, affect the lender's right to recover the principal of the loan.[23] Nor would it affect the terms of the real estate mortgage. The right to foreclose the mortgage remains with the creditors, and said right can be exercised upon the failure of the debtors to pay the debt due. The debt due is to be considered without the stipulation of the excessive interest. A legal interest of 12% per annum will be added in place of the excessive interest formerly imposed.
	GR No. 148163 2004-12-06	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. JUANITA B. YBAÑEZ QUISUMBING, J.
On this matter, we disagree with petitioner. CBP Circular No. 905-82, which was effective January 1, 1983, did not repeal nor in any way amend the Usury Law. The Circular simply suspended the effectivity of the Usury Law. A Central Bank Circular cannot repeal a law. Only a law can repeal another law. Thus, the retroactive application of a CBP Circular cannot, and should not, be presumed.[21] The loan was entered into on December 24, 1982, but CBP Circular No. 905-82 was given force and effect only on January 1, 1983. Thus, CBP Circular No. 905-82 could not be made applicable to the loan agreement in this case, and petitioner could not rely on this Circular for its imposition of 3% monthly surcharge.
	GR No. 137680 2004-02-06	CONCEPT PLACEMENT RESOURCES v. RICHARD V. FUNK SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We observe, however, that respondent did not encounter difficulty in representing petitioner. The complaint against it was dismissed with prejudice. All that respondent did was to prepare the answer with counterclaim and possibly petitioner's position paper. Considering respondent's limited legal services and the case involved is not complicated, the award of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees is a bit excessive. In First Metro Investment Corporation vs. Este del Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc.,[10] we ruled that courts are empowered to reduce the amount of attorney's fees if the same is iniquitous or unconscionable. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, we consider the amount of P20,000.00 reasonable.