Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

146942 April 22, 2003

In computing the interest and surcharge, a fraction of the month shall be considered one full month. In the event of an amicable settlement, the principal and surety in solidum shall reimburse the expenses of the plaintiff. (Sgd.) Corazon Ruiz Principal __________________ Surety"

CORAZON G. RUIZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CONSUELO TORRES, respondents. PUNO, J.: On appeal is the decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 56621 dated 25 August 2000, setting aside the decision2 of the trial court dated 19 May 1997 and lifting the permanent injunction on the foreclosure sale of the subject lot covered by TCT No. RT-96686, as well as its subsequent Resolution3 dated 26 January 2001, denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner Corazon G. Ruiz is engaged in the business of buying and selling jewelry. 4 She obtained loans from private respondent Consuelo Torres on different occasions, in the following amounts: P100,000.00; P200,000.00; P300,000.00; and P150,000.00. 5 Prior to their maturity, the loans were consolidated under one (1) promissory note dated March 22, 1995, which reads as follows:6 "P750,000.00 Quezon City, March 22, 1995 PROMISSORY NOTE For value received, I, CORAZON RUIZ, as principal and ROGELIO RUIZ as surety in solidum, jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of CONSUELO P. TORRES the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P750,000.00) Philippine Currency, to earn an interest at the rate of three per cent (3%) a month, for thirteen months, payable every _____ of the month, and to start on April 1995 and to mature on April 1996, subject to renewal. If the amount due is not paid on date due, a SURCHARGE of ONE PERCENT of the principal loan, for every month default, shall be collected. Remaining balance as of the maturity date shall earn an interest at the rate of ten percent a month, compounded monthly. It is finally agreed that the principal and surety in solidum, shall pay attorneys fees at the rate of twenty-five percent (25%) of the entire amount to be collected, in case this note is not paid according to the terms and conditions set forth, and same is referred to a lawyer for collection.

The consolidated loan of P750,000.00 was secured by a real estate mortgage on a 240-square meter lot in New Haven Village, Novaliches, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-96686, and registered in the name of petitioner.7 The mortgage was signed by Corazon Ruiz for herself and as attorney-in-fact of her husband Rogelio. It was executed on 20 March 1995, or two (2) days before the execution of the subject promissory note. 8 Thereafter, petitioner obtained three (3) more loans from private respondent, under the following promissory notes: (1) promissory note dated 21 April 1995, in the amount of P100,000.00; 9 (2) promissory note dated May 23, 1995, in the amount of P100,000.00;10 and (3) promissory note dated December 21, 1995, in the amount of P100,000.00.11 These combined loans of P300,000.00 were secured by P571,000.00 worth of jewelry pledged by petitioner to private respondent.12 From April 1995 to March 1996, petitioner paid the stipulated 3% monthly interest on the P750,000.00 loan,13amounting to P270,000.00.14 After March 1996, petitioner was unable to make interest payments as she had difficulties collecting from her clients in her jewelry business.15 Due to petitioners failure to pay the principal loan of P750,000.00, as well as the interest payment for April 1996, private respondent demanded payment not only of the P750,000.00 loan, but also of the P300,000.00 loan.16When petitioner failed to pay, private respondent sought the extra-judicial foreclosure of the aforementioned real estate mortgage. 17 On September 5, 1996, Acting Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff Perlita V. Ele, Deputy Sheriff In-Charge Rolando G. Acal and Supervising Sheriff Silverio P. Bernas issued a Notice of Sheriffs Sale of subject lot. The public auction was scheduled on October 8, 1996. 18 On October 7, 1996, one (1) day before the scheduled auction sale, petitioner filed a complaint with the RTC of Quezon City docketed as Civil Case No. Q-96-29024, with a prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the sheriff from proceeding with the foreclosure sale and to fix her indebtedness to private respondent to P706,000.00. The computed amount of P706,000.00 was based on the aggregate loan of P750,000.00, covered by the March 22, 1995 promissory note, plus the other loans of P300,000.00, covered by separate promissory notes, plus interest, minus P571,000.00 representing the amount of jewelry pledged in favor of private respondent.19 The trial court granted the prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, 20 and on 29 October 1996, issued a writ of preliminary injunction.21 In its Decision dated May 19, 1997, it ordered the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff to desist with the foreclosure sale of the subject property, and it made permanent the writ of preliminary injunction. It held that the real estate mortgage is unenforceable because of the lack of the participation and signature of petitioners husband. It noted that although the subject real estate mortgage stated that petitioner was "attorney-in-fact for herself and her husband," the Special Power of Attorney was never presented in court during the trial.22

The trial court further held that the promissory note in question is a unilateral contract of adhesion drafted by private respondent. It struck down the contract as repugnant to public policy because it was imposed by a dominant bargaining party (private respondent) on a weaker party (petitioner).23 Nevertheless, it held that petitioner still has an obligation to pay the private respondent. Private respondent was further barred from imposing on petitioner the obligation to pay the surcharge of one percent (1%) per month from March 1996 onwards, and interest of ten percent (10%) a month, compounded monthly from September 1996 to January 1997. Petitioner was thus ordered to pay the amount of P750,000.00 plus three percent (3%) interest per month, or a total of P885,000.00, plus legal interest from date of [receipt of] the decision until the total amount of P885,000.00 is paid.24 Aside from the foregoing, the trial court took into account petitioners proposal to pay her other obligations to private respondent in the amount of P392,000.00.25 The trial court also recognized the expenses borne by private respondent with regard the foreclosure sale and attorneys fees. As the notice of the foreclosure sale has already been published, it ordered the petitioner to reimburse private respondent the amount of P15,000.00 plus attorneys fees of the same amount.26 Thus, the trial court computed petitioners obligation to private respondent, as follows: Principal Loan . Interest.. Other Loans. Publication Fees. Attorneys Fees TOTAL P 750,000.00 135,000.00 392,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 P1,307,000.00

(1) PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTE OF P750,000.00 IS NOT A CONTRACT OF ADHESION DESPITE THE CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE SAME IS A READY-MADE CONTRACT PREPARED BY (THE) RESPONDENT CONSUELO TORRES AND DID NOT REFLECT THEIR TRUE INTENTIONS AS IT WEIGHED HEAVILY IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT AND AGAINST PETITIONER. (2) PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE SUBJECT DEED OF MORTGAGE OF MARCH 20, 1995 IS A PARAPHERNAL PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND NOT CONJUGAL EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY IS PARAPHERNAL WAS NEVER RAISED, NOR DISCUSSED AND ARGUED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. (3) PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE TRIAL COURTS COMPUTATION OF THE ACTUAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE PETITIONER WITH (THE) RESPONDENT TORRES EVEN THOUGH THE SAME IS BASED ON EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE IT. The pertinent issues to be resolved are: (1) Whether the promissory note of P750,000.00 is a contract of adhesion; (2) Whether the real property covered by the subject deed of mortgage dated March 20, 1995 is paraphernal property of petitioner; and (3) Whether the rates of interests and surcharges on the obligation of petitioner to private respondent are valid. I

with legal interest from date of receipt of decision until payment of total amount of P1,307,000.00 has been made.27 Private respondents motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated July 21, 1997. Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court set aside the decision of the trial court. It ruled that the real estate mortgage is valid despite the non-participation of petitioners husband in its execution because the land on which it was constituted is paraphernal property of petitioner-wife. Consequently, she may encumber the lot without the consent of her husband.28 It allowed its foreclosure since the loan it secured was not paid. Nonetheless, the appellate court declared as invalid the 10% compounded monthly interest29 and the 10% surcharge per month stipulated in the promissory notes dated May 23, 1995 and December 1, 1995,30 and so too the 1% compounded monthly interest stipulated in the promissory note dated 21 April 1995,31 for being excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, and contrary to morals. It held that the legal rate of interest of 12% per annum shall apply after the maturity dates of the notes until full payment of the entire amount due, and that the only permissible rate of surcharge is 1% per month, without compounding. 32 The appellate court also granted attorneys fees in the amount of P50,000.00, and not the stipulated 25% of the amount due, following the ruling in the case of Medel v. Court of Appeals.33 Now, before this Court, petitioner assigns the following errors:

We hold that the promissory note in the case at bar is not a contract of adhesion. In Sweet Lines, Inc. vs. Teves,34this Court discussed the nature of a contract of adhesion as follows: ". . . there are certain contracts almost all the provisions of which have been drafted only by one party, usually a corporation. Such contracts are called contracts of adhesion, because the only participation of the other party is the signing of his signature or his adhesion thereto. Insurance contracts, bills of lading, contracts of sale of lots on the installment plan fall into this category.35 " . . . it is drafted only by one party, usually the corporation, and is sought to be accepted or adhered to by the other party . . . who cannot change the same and who are thus made to adhere hereto on the take it or leave it basis . . . "36 In said case of Sweet Lines,37 the conditions of the contract on the 4 x 6 inches passenger ticket are in fine print. Thus we held: " . . . it is hardly just and proper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets received from crowded/congested counters, more often than not during rush hours, for conditions that may be printed thereon, much less charge them with having consented to the conditions, so printed, especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print, as in this case."38

We further stressed in the said case that the questioned Condition No. 14 was prepared solely by one party which was the corporation, and the other party who was then a passenger had no say in its preparation. The passengers have no opportunity to examine and consider the terms and conditions of the contract prior to the purchase of their tickets.39 In the case at bar, the promissory note in question did not contain any fine print provision which could not have been examined by the petitioner. Petitioner had all the time to go over and study the stipulations embodied in the promissory note. Aside from the March 22, 1995 promissory note for P750,000.00, three other promissory notes of different dates and amounts were executed by petitioner in favor of private respondent. These promissory notes contain similar terms and conditions, with a little variance in the terms of interests and surcharges. The fact that petitioner and private respondent had entered into not only one but several loan transactions shows that petitioner was not in any way compelled to accept the terms allegedly imposed by private respondent. Moreover, petitioner, in her complaint40 dated October 7, 1996 filed with the trial court, never claimed that she was forced to sign the subject note. Paragraph five of her complaint states: "That on or about March 22, 1995 plaintiff was required by the defendant Torres to execute a promissory note consolidating her unpaid principal loan and interests which said defendant computed to be in the sum of P750,000.00 . . ." To be required is certainly different from being compelled. She could have rejected the conditions made by private respondent. As an experienced business- woman, she ought to understand all the conditions set forth in the subject promissory note. As held by this Court in Lee, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,41 it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns.42 Hence, the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents and consequences. This presumption acquires greater force in the case at bar where not only one but several documents were executed at different times by petitioner in favor of private respondent. II We also affirm the ruling of the appellate court that the real property covered by the subject deed of mortgage is paraphernal property. The property subject of the mortgage is registered in the name of "Corazon G. Ruiz, of legal age, married to Rogelio Ruiz, Filipinos." Thus, title is registered in the name of Corazon alone because the phrase "married to Rogelio Ruiz" is merely descriptive of the civil status of Corazon and should not be construed to mean that her husband is also a registered owner. Furthermore, registration of the property in the name of "Corazon G. Ruiz, of legal age, married to Rogelio Ruiz" is not proof that such property was acquired during the marriage, and thus, is presumed to be conjugal. The property could have been acquired by Corazon while she was still single, and registered only after her marriage to Rogelio Ruiz. Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts.43 The presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code that properties acquired during the marriage are presumed to be conjugal cannot apply in the instant case. Before such presumption can apply, it must first be established that the property was in fact acquired during the marriage. In other words, proof of acquisition during the marriage is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of conjugal ownership.44 No such proof was offered nor presented in the case at bar. Thus, on the basis alone of the certificate of title, it cannot be presumed that said property was acquired during the marriage and that it is conjugal property. Since there is no showing as to when the property in question was acquired, the fact that the title is in the name of the wife alone is determinative of its nature as paraphernal, i.e., belonging exclusively to said spouse.45 The only import of the title is that Corazon is the owner of said property, the same having been registered in her name alone, and that she is married to Rogelio Ruiz.46 III

We now resolve the issue of whether the rates of interests and surcharges on the obligation of petitioner to private respondent are legal. The four (4) unpaid promissory notes executed by petitioner in favor of private respondent are in the following amounts and maturity dates: (1) P750,000.00, dated March 22, 1995 matured on April 21, 1996; (2) P100,000.00, dated April 21, 1995 matured on August 21, 1995; (3) P100,000.00, dated May 23, 1995 matured on November 23, 1995; and (4) P100,000.00, dated December 21, 1995 matured on March 1, 1996. The P750,000.00 promissory note dated March 22, 1995 has the following provisions: (1) 3% monthly interest, from the signing of the note until its maturity date; (2) 10% compounded monthly interest on the remaining balance at maturity date; (3) 1% surcharge on the principal loan for every month of default; and (4) 25% attorneys fees. The P100,000.00 promissory note dated April 21, 1995 has the following provisions: (1) 3% monthly interest, from the signing of the note until its maturity date; (2) 10% monthly interest on the remaining balance at maturity date; (3) 1% compounded monthly surcharge on the principal loan for every month of default; and (4) 10% attorneys fees. The two (2) other P100,000.00 promissory notes dated May 23, 1995 and December 1, 1995 have the following provisions: (1) 3% monthly interest, from the signing of the note until its maturity date; (2) 10% compounded monthly interest on the remaining balance at maturity date; (3) 10% surcharge on the principal loan for every month of default; and (4) 10% attorneys fees.

We affirm the ruling of the appellate court, striking down as invalid the 10% compounded monthly interest, the 10% surcharge per month stipulated in the promissory notes dated May 23, 1995 and December 1, 1995, and the 1% compounded monthly interest stipulated in the promissory note dated April 21, 1995. The legal rate of interest of 12% per annum shall apply after the maturity dates of the notes until full payment of the entire amount due. Also, the only permissible rate of surcharge is 1% per month, without compounding. We also uphold the award of the appellate court of attorneys fees, the amount of which having been reasonably reduced from the stipulated 25% (in the March 22, 1995 promissory note) and 10% (in the other three promissory notes) of the entire amount due, to a fixed amount of P50,000.00. However, we equitably reduce the 3% per month or 36% per annum interest present in all four (4) promissory notes to 1% per month or 12% per annum interest. The foregoing rates of interests and surcharges are in accord with Medel vs. Court of Appeals,47 Garcia vs. Court of Appeals,48 Bautista vs. Pilar Development Corporation,49 and the recent case of Spouses Solangon vs. Salazar.50 This Court invalidated a stipulated 5.5% per month or 66% per annum interest on a P500,000.00 loan in Medel51 and a 6% per month or 72% per annum interest on a P60,000.00 loan in Solangon52 for being excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. In both cases, we reduced the interest rate to 12% per annum. We held that while the Usury Law has been suspended by Central Bank Circular No. 905, s. 1982, effective on January 1, 1983, and parties to a loan agreement have been given wide latitude to agree on any interest rate, still stipulated interest rates are illegal if they are unconscionable. Nothing in the said circular grants lenders carte blanche authority to raise interest rates to levels which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets.53 On the other hand, in Bautista vs. Pilar Development Corp.,54 this Court upheld the validity of a 21% per annum interest on a P142,326.43 loan, and in Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, sustained the agreement of the parties to a 24% per annum interest on an P8,649,250.00 loan. It is on the basis of these cases that we reduce the 36% per annum interest to 12%. An interest of 12% per annum is deemed fair and reasonable. While it is true that this Court invalidated a much higher interest rate of 66% per annum in Medel55 and 72% inSolangon56 it has sustained the validity of a much lower interest rate of 21% in Bautista57 and 24% in Garcia.58We still find the 36% per annum interest rate in the case at bar to be substantially greater than those upheld by this Court in the two (2) aforecited cases. The 1% surcharge on the principal loan for every month of default is valid. This surcharge or penalty stipulated in a loan agreement in case of default partakes of the nature of liquidated damages under Art. 2227 of the New Civil Code, and is separate and distinct from interest payment.59 Also referred to as a penalty clause, it is expressly recognized by law. It is an accessory undertaking to assume greater liability on the part of an obligor in case of breach of an obligation.60 The obligor would then be bound to pay the stipulated amount of indemnity without the necessity of proof on the existence and on the measure of damages caused by the breach.61 Although the courts may not at liberty ignore the freedom of the parties to agree on such terms and conditions as they see fit that contravene neither law nor morals, good customs, public order or public policy, a stipulated penalty, nevertheless, may be equitably reduced if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.62 In the instant case, the 10% surcharge per month stipulated in the promissory notes dated May 23, 1995 and December 1, 1995 was properly reduced by the appellate court. In sum, petitioner shall pay private respondent the following:

b.

1% surcharge per month on principal from May 1996 until fully paid P100,000.00

2. Principal of loan under promissory note dated April 21, 1995 a. 1% interest per month on principal from April 21, 1995 until fully paid 1% surcharge per month on principal from September 1995 until fully paid

b.

3. Principal of loan under promissory note dated May 23, 1995 a. 1% interest per month on principal from May 23, 1995 until fully paid 1% surcharge per month on principal from December 1995 until fully paid

P100,000.00

b.

4. Principal of loan under promissory note dated December 1, 1995 a. 1% interest per month on principal from December 1, 1995 until fully paid 1% surcharge per month on principal from April 1996 until fully paid

P100,000.00

b.

5. Attorneys fees

P 50,000.00

Hence, since the mortgage is valid and the loan it secures remains unpaid, the foreclosure proceedings may now proceed. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the interest rate of 36% per annum is ordered reduced to 12 % per annum. SO ORDERED.

1. Principal of loan under promissory note dated March 22, 1995 a. 1% interest per month on principal from March 22, 1995 until fully paid, less P270,000.00 paid by petitioner as interest from April 1995 to March 1996

P750,000.00

SECOND DIVISION SPOUSES DAVID B. CARPO and RECHILDA S. CARPO, Petitioners, G.R. Nos. 150773 & 153599 Present: - versus Chairman, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO, SR., TINGA, and CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ. PUNO, J.,

RTC. Petitioners consigned the amount of Two Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Seven Pesos and Twenty-Six Centavos (P257,197.26) with the RTC. Meanwhile, in SP No. 98-1665, a temporary restraining order was issued upon motion on 3 August 1999, enjoining the enforcement of the writ of possession. In anOrder[5] dated 6 January 2000, the RTC suspended the enforcement of the writ of possession pending the final disposition of Civil Case No. 99-4376. Against this Order, respondents filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 57297. During the pendency of the case before the Court of Appeals, RTC Judge Filemon B. Montenegro dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. 99-4376 on the ground that it was filed out of time and barred by laches. The RTC proceeded from the premise that the complaint was one for annulment of a voidable contract and thus barred by the four-year prescriptive period. Hence, the first petition for review now under consideration was filed with this Court, assailing the dismissal of the complaint. The second petition for review was filed with the Court after the Court of Appeals on 30 April 2002 annulled and set aside the RTC orders in SP No. 98-1665 on the ground that it was the ministerial duty of the lower court to issue the writ of possession when title over the mortgaged property had been consolidated in the mortgagee. This Court ordered the consolidation of the two cases, on motion of petitioners. In G.R. No. 150773, petitioners claim that following the Courts ruling in Medel v. Court of Appeals[6] the rate of interest stipulated in the principal loan agreement is clearly null and void. Consequently, they also argue that the nullity of the agreed interest rate affects the validity of the real estate mortgage. Notably, while petitioners were silent in their petition on the issues of prescription and laches on which the RTC grounded the dismissal of the complaint, they belatedly raised the matters in their Memorandum. Nonetheless, these points warrant brief comment. On the other hand, petitioners argue in G.R. No. 153599 that the RTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when it issued the orders dated 3 August 1999 and 6 January 2000, and that these orders could not have been the proper subjects of a petition for certiorari and mandamus. More accurately, the justiciable issues before us are whether the Court of Appeals could properly entertain the petition for certiorari from the timeliness aspect, and whether the appellate court correctly concluded that the writ of possession could no longer be stayed.

ELEANOR CHUA and ELMA DY NG, Respondents. Promulgated:

September 30, 2005 x-------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION TINGA, J.: Before this Court are two consolidated petitions for review. The first, docketed as G.R. No. 150773, assails the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26 of Naga City dated 26 October 2001 in Civil Case No. 99-4376. RTC Judge Filemon B. Montenegro dismissed the complaint[2] for annulment of real estate mortgage and consequent foreclosure proceedings filed by the spouses David B. Carpo and Rechilda S. Carpo (petitioners). The second, docketed as G.R. No. 153599, seeks to annul the Court of Appeals Decision[3] dated 30 April 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 57297. The Court of Appeals Third Division annulled and set aside the orders of Judge Corazon A. Tordilla to suspend the sheriffs enforcement of the writ of possession. The cases stemmed from a loan contracted by petitioners. On 18 July 1995, they borrowed from Eleanor Chua and Elma Dy Ng (respondents) the amount of One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P175,000.00), payable within six (6) months with an interest rate of six percent (6%) per month. To secure the payment of the loan, petitioners mortgaged their residential house and lot situated at San Francisco, Magarao, Camarines Sur, which lot is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 23180. Petitioners failed to pay the loan upon demand. Consequently, the real estate mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed and the mortgaged property sold at a public auction on 8 July 1996. The house and lot was awarded to respondents, who were the only bidders, for the amount of Three Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Seven Pesos and Eighty Centavos (P367,457.80). Upon failure of petitioners to exercise their right of redemption, a certificate of sale was issued on 5 September 1997 by Sheriff Rolando A. Borja. TCT No. 23180 was cancelled and in its stead, TCT No. 29338 was issued in the name of respondents. Despite the issuance of the TCT, petitioners continued to occupy the said house and lot, prompting respondents to file a petition for writ of possession with the RTC docketed as Special Proceedings (SP) No. 98-1665. On 23 March 1999, RTC Judge Ernesto A. Miguel issued an Order[4] for the issuance of a writ of possession. On 23 July 1999, petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage and the consequent foreclosure proceedings, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-4376 of the

We first resolve the petition in G.R. No. 150773. Petitioners contend that the agreed rate of interest of 6% per month or 72% per annum is so excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant that it should have been declared null and void. Instead of dismissing their complaint, they aver that the lower court should have declared them liable to respondents for the original amount of the loan plus 12% interest per annum and 1% monthly penalty charge as liquidated damages,[7] in view of the ruling in Medel v. Court of Appeals.[8] In Medel, the Court found that the interest stipulated at 5.5% per month or 66% per annum was so iniquitous or unconscionable as to render the stipulation void. Nevertheless, we find the interest at 5.5% per month, or 66% per annum, stipulated upon by the parties in the promissory note iniquitous or unconscionable, and, hence, contrary to morals (contra bonos mores), if not against the law. The stipulation is void. The Court shall reduce equitably liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.[9] 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,[10] we annulled the stipulation of 6% per month or 72% per annum interest on a P60,000.00 loan. In Imperial v.

Jaucian,[11] we reduced the interest rate from 16% to 1.167% per month or 14% per annum. In Ruiz v. Court of Appeals,[12] 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.[13] Recently, this Court, in Arrofo v. Quino,[14] reduced the 7% interest per month on a P15,000.00 loan amounting to 84% interest per annum to 18% per annum. There is no need to unsettle the principle affirmed in Medel and like cases. From that perspective, it is apparent that the stipulated interest in the subject loan is excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. Pursuant to the freedom of contract principle embodied in Article 1306 of the Civil Code, contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. In the ordinary course, the codal provision may be invoked to annul the excessive stipulated interest. In the case at bar, the stipulated interest rate is 6% per month, or 72% per annum. By the standards set in the above-cited cases, this stipulation is similarly invalid. However, the RTC refused to apply the principle cited and employed in Medel on the ground that Medel did not pertain to the annulment of a real estate mortgage, [15] as it was a case for annulment of the loan contract itself. The question thus sensibly arises whether the invalidity of the stipulation on interest carries with it the invalidity of the principal obligation. The question is crucial to the present petition even if the subject thereof is not the annulment of the loan contract but that of the mortgage contract. 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. Being a mere accessory contract, the validity of the mortgage contract would depend on the validity of the loan secured by it.[16] Notably in Medel, the Court did not invalidate the entire loan obligation despite the inequitability of the stipulated interest, but instead reduced the rate of interest to the more reasonable rate of 12% per annum. The same remedial approach to the wrongful interest rates involved was employed or affirmed by the Court in Solangon, Imperial, Ruiz,Cuaton, and Arrofo. The Courts ultimate affirmation in the cases cited of the validity of the principal loan obligation side by side with the invalidation of the interest rates thereupon is congruent with the rule that a usurious loan transaction is not a complete nullity but defective only with respect to the agreed interest. We are aware that the Court of Appeals, on certain occasions, had ruled that a usurious loan is wholly null and void both as to the loan and as to the usurious interest.[17]However, this Court adopted the contrary rule, as comprehensively discussed in Briones v. Cammayo:[18] In Gui Jong & Co. vs. Rivera, et al., 45 Phil. 778, this Court likewise declared that, in any event, the debtor in a usurious contract of loan should pay the creditor the amount which he justly owes him, citing in support of this ruling its previous decisions in Go Chioco, Supra, Aguilar vs. Rubiato, et al., 40 Phil. 570, and Delgado vs. Duque Valgona, 44 Phil. 739. ....

Other cases upholding the same principle are Palileo vs. Cosio, 97 Phil. 919 and Pascua vs. Perez, L-19554, January 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 199, 200-202. In the latter We expressly held that when a contract is found to be tainted with usury "the only right of the respondent (creditor) . . . was merely to collect the amount of the loan, plus interest due thereon." The view has been expressed, however, that the ruling thus consistently adhered to should now be abandoned because Article 1957 of the new Civil Code a subsequent law provides that contracts and stipulations, under any cloak or device whatever, intended to circumvent the laws against usury, shall be void, and that in such cases "the borrower may recover in accordance with the laws on usury." From this the conclusion is drawn that the whole contract is void and that, therefore, the creditor has no right to recover not even his capital. The meaning and scope of our ruling in the cases mentioned heretofore is clearly stated, and the view referred to in the preceding paragraph is adequately answered, in Angel Jose, etc. vs. Chelda Enterprises, et al. (L-25704, April 24, 1968). On the question of whether a creditor in a usurious contract may or may not recover the principal of the loan, and, in the affirmative, whether or not he may also recover interest thereon at the legal rate, We said the following: . . . . Appealing directly to Us, defendants raise two questions of law: (1) In a loan with usurious interest, may the creditor recover the principal of the loan? (2) Should attorney's fees be awarded in plaintiff's favor?" Great reliance is made by appellants on Art. 1411 of the New Civil Code . . . . Since, according to the appellants, a usurious loan is void due to illegality of cause or object, the rule of pari delicto expressed in Article 1411, supra, applies, so that neither party can bring action against each other. Said rule, however, appellants add, is modified as to the borrower, by express provision of the law (Art. 1413, New Civil Code), allowing the borrower to recover interest paid in excess of the interest allowed by the Usury Law. As to the lender, no exception is made to the rule; hence, he cannot recover on the contract. So they continue the New Civil Code provisions must be upheld as against the Usury Law, under which a loan with usurious interest is not totally void, because of Article 1961 of the New Civil Code, that: "Usurious contracts shall be governed by the Usury Law and other special laws, so far as they are not inconsistent with this Code." We do not agree with such reasoning. Article 1411 of the New Civil Code is not new; it is the same as Article 1305 of the Old Civil Code. Therefore, said provision is no warrant for departing from previous interpretation that, as provided in the Usury Law (Act No. 2655, as amended), a loan with usurious interest is not totally void only as to the interest. . . . [a]ppellants fail to consider that a contract of loan with usurious interest consists of principal and accessory stipulations; the principal one is to pay the debt; the accessory stipulation is to pay interest thereon. And said two stipulations are divisible in the sense that the former can still stand without the latter. Article 1273, Civil Code, attests to this: "The renunciation of the principal debt shall extinguish the accessory obligations; but the waiver of the latter shall leave the former in force." The question therefore to resolve is whether the illegal terms as to payment of interest likewise renders a nullity the legal terms as to payments of the principal debt. Article 1420 of the New Civil Code provides in this regard: "In case of a divisible contract, if the illegal terms can be separated from the legal ones, the latter may be enforced." In simple loan with stipulation of usurious interest, the prestation of the debtor to pay the principal debt, which is the cause of the contract (Article 1350, Civil Code), is not illegal. The

Then in Lopez and Javelona vs. El Hogar Filipino, 47 Phil. 249, We also held that the standing jurisprudence of this Court on the question under consideration was clearly to the effect that the Usury Law, by its letter and spirit, did not deprive the lender of his right to recover from the borrower the money actually loaned to and enjoyed by the latter. This Court went further to say that the Usury Law did not provide for the forfeiture of the capital in favor of the debtor in usurious contracts, and that while the forfeiture might appear to be convenient as a drastic measure to eradicate the evil of usury, the legal question involved should not be resolved on the basis of convenience.

illegality lies only as to the prestation to pay the stipulated interest; hence, being separable, the latter only should be deemed void, since it is the only one that is illegal. .... The principal debt remaining without stipulation for payment of interest can thus be recovered by judicial action. And in case of such demand, and the debtor incurs in delay, the debt earns interest from the date of the demand (in this case from the filing of the complaint). Such interest is not due to stipulation, for there was none, the same being void. Rather, it is due to the general provision of law that in obligations to pay money, where the debtor incurs in delay, he has to pay interest by way of damages (Art. 2209, Civil Code). The court a quo therefore, did not err in ordering defendants to pay the principal debt with interest thereon at the legal rate, from the date of filing of the complaint."[19] The Courts wholehearted affirmation of the rule that the principal obligation subsists despite the nullity of the stipulated interest is evinced by its subsequent rulings, cited above, in all of which the main obligation was upheld and the offending interest rate merely corrected. Hence, it is clear and settled that the principal loan obligation still stands and remains valid. By the same token, since the mortgage contract derives its vitality from the validity of the principal obligation, the invalid stipulation on interest rate is similarly insufficient to render void the ancillary mortgage contract. It should be noted that had the Court declared the loan and mortgage agreements void for being contrary to public policy, no prescriptive period could have run.[20] Such benefit is obviously not available to petitioners. Yet the RTC pronounced that the complaint was barred by the four-year prescriptive period provided in Article 1391 of the Civil Code, which governs voidable contracts. This conclusion was derived from the allegation in the complaint that the consent of petitioners was vitiated through undue influence. While the RTC correctly acknowledged the rule of prescription for voidable contracts, it erred in applying the rule in this case. We are hard put to conclude in this case that there was any undue influence in the first place. There is ultimately no showing that petitioners consent to the loan and mortgage agreements was vitiated by undue influence. The financial condition of petitioners may have motivated them to contract with respondents, but undue influence cannot be attributed to respondents simply because they had lent money. Article 1391, in relation to Article 1390 of the Civil Code, grants the aggrieved party the right to obtain the annulment of contract on account of factors which vitiate consent. Article 1337 defines the concept of undue influence, as follows: 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. The following circumstances shall be considered: the confidential, family, spiritual and other relations between the parties or the fact that the person alleged to have been unduly influenced was suffering from mental weakness, or was ignorant or in financial distress. While petitioners were allegedly financially distressed, it must be proven that there is deprivation of their free agency. In other words, 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.[21] The alleged lingering financial woes of petitioners per se cannot be equated with the presence of undue influence. The RTC had likewise concluded that petitioners were barred by laches from assailing the validity of the real estate mortgage. We wholeheartedly agree. If indeed petitioners unwillingly gave their consent to the agreement, they should have raised this issue as early as in the foreclosure proceedings. It was only when the writ of possession was issued did petitioners challenge the stipulations in the loan contract in their action for annulment of

mortgage. Evidently, petitioners slept on their rights. The Court of Appeals succinctly made the following observations: In all these proceedings starting from the foreclosure, followed by the issuance of a provisional certificate of sale; then the definite certificate of sale; then the issuance of TCT No. 29338 in favor of the defendants and finally the petition for the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of the defendants, there is no showing that plaintiffs questioned the validity of these proceedings. It was only after the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of the defendants, that plaintiffs allegedly tendered to the defendants the amount of P260,000.00 which the defendants refused. In all these proceedings, why did plaintiffs sleep on their rights?[22] Clearly then, with the absence of undue influence, petitioners have no cause of action. Even assuming undue influence vitiated their consent to the loan contract, their action would already be barred by prescription when they filed it. Moreover, petitioners had clearly slept on their rights as they failed to timely assail the validity of the mortgage agreement. The denial of the petition in G.R. No. 150773 is warranted. We now resolve the petition in G.R. No. 153599. Petitioners claim that the assailed RTC orders dated 3 August 1999 and 6 January 2000 could no longer be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus as the reglementary period for such action had already elapsed. It must be noted that the Order dated 3 August 1999 suspending the enforcement of the writ of possession had a period of effectivity of only twenty (20) days from 3 August 1999, or until 23 August 1999. Thus, upon the expiration of the twenty (20)-day period, the said Order became functus officio. Thus, there is really no sense in assailing the validity of this Order, mooted as it was. For the same reason, the validity of the order need not have been assailed by respondents in their special civil action before the Court of Appeals. On the other hand, the Order dated 6 January 2000 is in the nature of a writ of injunction whose period of efficacy is indefinite. It may be properly assailed by way of the special civil action for certiorari, as it is interlocutory in nature. As a rule, the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment or order.[23] Petitioners argue that the 3 August 1999 Order could no longer be assailed by respondents in a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, as the petition was filed beyond sixty (60) days following respondents receipt of the Order. Considering that the 3 August 1999 Order had become functus officio in the first place, this argument deserves scant consideration. Petitioners further claim that the 6 January 2000 Order could not have likewise been the subject of a special civil action for certiorari, as it is according to them a final order, as opposed to an interlocutory order. That the 6 January 2000 Order is interlocutory in nature should be beyond doubt. An order is interlocutory if its effects would only be provisional in character and would still leave substantial proceedings to be further had by the issuing court in order to put the controversy to rest.[24] The injunctive relief granted by the order is definitely final, but merely provisional, its effectivity hinging on the ultimate outcome of the then pending action for annulment of real estate mortgage. Indeed, an interlocutory order hardly puts to a close, or disposes of, a case or a disputed issue leaving nothing else to be done by the court in respect thereto, as is characteristic of a final order. Since the 6 January 2000 Order is not a final order, but rather interlocutory in nature, we cannot agree with petitioners who insist that it may be assailed only through an appeal perfected within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof by respondents. It is axiomatic that an interlocutory order cannot be challenged by an appeal,

but is susceptible to review only through the special civil action of certiorari. [25] The sixty (60)day reglementary period for special civil actions under Rule 65 applies, and respondents petition was filed with the Court of Appeals well within the period. Accordingly, no error can be attributed to the Court of Appeals in granting the petition for certiorari and mandamus. As pointed out by respondents, the remedy of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.[26] Thus, we also affirm the Court of Appeals ruling to set aside the RTC orders enjoining the enforcement of the writ of possession.[27] The purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of possession, regardless of whether or not there is a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure proceedings. An injunction to prohibit the issuance or enforcement of the writ is entirely out of place. [28] One final note. The issue on the validity of the stipulated interest rates, regrettably for petitioners, was not raised at the earliest possible opportunity. It should be pointed out though that since an excessive stipulated interest rate may be void for being contrary to public policy, an action to annul said interest rate does not prescribe. Such indeed is the remedy; it is not the action for annulment of the ancillary real estate mortgage. Despite the nullity of the stipulated interest rate, the principal loan obligation subsists, and along with it the mortgage that serves as collateral security for it. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petitions are DENIED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.