Scribd
Upload
898 views1 page

Bulatao Vs

The Supreme Court ruled that the 5% monthly interest rate on Estanoctoc's P200,000 loan from Atty. Bulatao was not usurious or excessive. While Estanoctoc claimed financial distress and only received P80,000, Atty. Bulatao denied this and cited a central bank circular removing interest rate ceilings. The trial court sided with Atty. Bulatao, finding Estanoctoc was educated and from a well-off family, and was capable of repaying the loan principal and interest, having even suggested a 20% interest rate. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling.

Uploaded by

Irish Ann
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
898 views1 page

Bulatao Vs

The Supreme Court ruled that the 5% monthly interest rate on Estanoctoc's P200,000 loan from Atty. Bulatao was not usurious or excessive. While Estanoctoc claimed financial distress and only received P80,000, Atty. Bulatao denied this and cited a central bank circular removing interest rate ceilings. The trial court sided with Atty. Bulatao, finding Estanoctoc was educated and from a well-off family, and was capable of repaying the loan principal and interest, having even suggested a 20% interest rate. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling.

Uploaded by

Irish Ann
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Bulatao vs. Estonactoc Case Summary

Bulatao vs.

Estonactoc

G.R. No. 235020, December 10, 2019

1st Division

Caguioa, J.

Nature of action:

Facts:

Estanoctoc executed a Deed of Mortgage of Real Property (DMRP) in favor of Atty. Bulatao, covering a
parcel of land located in Pongpong, Sto. Tomas, La Union, as security for a loan in the amount of P200,
000.00. with an interest rate of 5% per month which is due on June 4, 2009. The DMRP contained the.
Estanoctoc defaulted in her obligation, Atty. Bulatao foreclosed the mortgage and petitioned the court
for the sale of the property in a public auction. While pending sale of the subject property, Estanoctoc
file a complaint for Injunction, Annulment of Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and Damages against Atty.
Bulatao, the Clerk of Court and Sheriff, seeking to declare the DMRP as illegal, inexistent and null and
void, and to make the contract unenforceable. Estanoctoc alleged that Atty. Bulatao took advantage of
her financial distress and urgent financial needs by imposing in the DMRP an interest rate of 5% per
months which is excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, exorbitant and contrary to public policy,
rendering the contract null and void. She also alleged that she only received P80,000.00 from Atty.
Bulatao, contrary to the P200,000.00 contracted loan amount. In addition, she sought the award of
moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.

Atty. Bulatao denied the allegations, he further denied that the interest is usurious on account of Central
Bank Circular No. 905-82, which expressly removed the interest ceilings prescribed under the Usury Law,
leaving the parties with the liberty to mutually agree on an interest rate. The trial court ruled in favor of
Atty. Bulatao, it ruled that Estanoctoc is bound by the terms and stipulations in the contract of loan and
real estate mortgage and the stipulation of 5% per month on the loan is not exorbitant considering that
the borrowers, Estanoctoc, appears to be an educated businesswoman, from a well-to-do family as
demonstrated by her having a son who studies in a prestigious school, and her late husband being the
former town mayor of Sto. Tomas, La Union, that she is in a position to pay not only the principal loan
amount but also the stipulated interest; and that she even expressed her capacity to pay interest of
even up to 20% to entice Atty. Bulatao to extend the loan to her.

Issue:

Ruling:

You might also like