0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
146 просмотров1 страница
This document summarizes a court case between Private Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP) and Davao Timber Corporation (DATICOR) regarding a loan agreement. The key details are:
- PDCP and DATICOR entered into a loan agreement in 1974, with interest rates of 11-3/4% for foreign currency loans and 12% for peso loans.
- DATICOR argued the loan contract violated usury laws and sought to prevent foreclosure on its properties.
- The court ruled that while interest rate stipulations in a usurious loan are void, the principal amount of the loan can still be recovered and the borrower does not forfeit the full amount. Only the interest
This document summarizes a court case between Private Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP) and Davao Timber Corporation (DATICOR) regarding a loan agreement. The key details are:
- PDCP and DATICOR entered into a loan agreement in 1974, with interest rates of 11-3/4% for foreign currency loans and 12% for peso loans.
- DATICOR argued the loan contract violated usury laws and sought to prevent foreclosure on its properties.
- The court ruled that while interest rate stipulations in a usurious loan are void, the principal amount of the loan can still be recovered and the borrower does not forfeit the full amount. Only the interest
This document summarizes a court case between Private Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP) and Davao Timber Corporation (DATICOR) regarding a loan agreement. The key details are:
- PDCP and DATICOR entered into a loan agreement in 1974, with interest rates of 11-3/4% for foreign currency loans and 12% for peso loans.
- DATICOR argued the loan contract violated usury laws and sought to prevent foreclosure on its properties.
- The court ruled that while interest rate stipulations in a usurious loan are void, the principal amount of the loan can still be recovered and the borrower does not forfeit the full amount. Only the interest
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PDCP) v IAC
FACTS: On May 21, 1974, Davao Timber Corporation, DATICOR for brevity, and the Private Development Corporation (PDCP) entered into a loan agreement. It was stipulated in the loan agreement, that the foreign currency loan was to be paid with an interest rate of eleven and three fourths (11-3/4%) per cent per annum on the disbursed amount of the foreign currency; and the peso loan at the rate of twelve (12%) per cent per annum on the disbursed amount of the peso loan outstanding, commencing on the several dates on which disbursements of the proceeds of the loans were made. A total of P3,000,000.00 was already paid by Del Rosario to PDCP and which the latter applied to interests, service fees and penalty charges, such that according to PDCP, DATICOR still has an outstanding balance on the principal loan of P10,887,856.99 as of May 15, 1983. DATICOR filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Davao Oriental seeking a writ of injunction to prevent PDCP from foreclosing its properties in Davao, and likewise praying for the annulment of the loan contract as it is in violation of the Usury Law and damages. The then Intermediate Appellate Court set aside the decision appealed declared the stipulations of interest in the loan agreement between DATICOR and PDCP void and of no effect, as if the loan agreement is without stipulation as to payment of interest." ISSUE: Whether or not stipulations on usurious interest should be interpreted to mean forfeiture even of the principal. RULING: No. As held in Angel Jose Warehousing Co., Inc. v. Chelda Enterprises, et al: "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 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 only one that is illegal.." . . "The foregoing interpretation is reached with the philosophy of usury legislation in mind; to discourage stipulations on usurious interest, said stipulations are treated as wholly void, so that the loan becomes one without stipulation as to the payment of interest. It should not, however, be interpreted to mean forfeiture even of the principal, for this would unjustly enrich the borrower at the expense of the lender. Furthermore, penal sanctions are available against a usurious lender, as a further deterrence to usury. "The principal debt remaining without stipulation for payment of interest can thus be recovered by judicial action."