My Board
Academics => Legal Department => Topic started by: mico on May 18, 2013, 08:50:52 PM
-
Mostly ng nababasa ko is talo kana daw pag kalaban mo sa case ang bank? how true is this. I know a certain family affected by this, here's their case, they have a residential property worth 5M ang market value, since madami silang utang (private and loan financing) they decided to loan the property, since their property is not yet titled, tax dec only since the property is inherited from parent (tax dec also) walang commercial bank na possible tumanggap at a good price, then Rural Bank to the rescue accepted their property loan at a value of 700k with the following condition:
1. Bank will pay all the obligation of Owner amounting to 687k so loaners(owners) will only received 13k in cash.
2. 700k is payable in 6 mos only @25% p.a (super laki nito kung iisipin)
after 10 years now... kinukuha na ni bank ang propery ayaw padin umalis ng owners dahil d daw nakakabayad, gusto magbayad ng owners pero gustong payment ng bank is 12M na yun nadaw interest lahat lahat, ayaw makipag usap ng maayos ng bank.
May kaso ba sa bank para dito?
-
depende po yan sir. ang suspension ng usury law allows the parties to agree among themselves a stipulated interest rate. pero di po absolute yang rule na yan. may jurisprudence na sinabi ng SC na "Stipulated interest rates are illegal if they are unconscionable and the Court is allowed to temper interest rates when necessary. In exercising this vested power to determine what is iniquitous and unconscionable, the Court must consider the circumstances of each case. What may be iniquitous and unconscionable in one case, may be just in another."
Merong cases na pinayagan ng Supreme Court ang 21, 23 and 24% p.a. stipulated interest rates. Meron din cases na ni-reduce nila from 18 to 10%.
-
depende po yan sir. ang suspension ng usury law allows the parties to agree among themselves a stipulated interest rate. pero di po absolute yang rule na yan. may jurisprudence na sinabi ng SC na "Stipulated interest rates are illegal if they are unconscionable and the Court is allowed to temper interest rates when necessary. In exercising this vested power to determine what is iniquitous and unconscionable, the Court must consider the circumstances of each case. What may be iniquitous and unconscionable in one case, may be just in another."
Merong cases na pinayagan ng Supreme Court ang 21, 23 and 24% p.a. stipulated interest rates. Meron din cases na ni-reduce nila from 18 to 10%.
Thank you Sir, depende nga cguro sa evidence padin at sa Judge kung may makikitan, morale, legal or ethical violation bali pala.
-
the client can always file a case to reduce the interest...in several cases, the court has exercised the power to reduce interests for being exorbitant, onerous and unconscionable...
-
Meron pa rin through the virtue of general justice and equity malilimit pa rin ng korte ang interest rates.
-
Additional information lang pandagdag sa mga nasabi na dito nila Sir Mico at ronronyjerardo.
In the first place, we are not compelled to agree on the interest rate/s stipulated by the bank or kung sino man na legally authorized to lend money. If you think na mataas and unconscionable ang interest rate na yon, pwede kang wag pumirma and instead look for banks na mas mababa ang ino-offer na interest rate. Pero once pumirma ka na, then you should abide by the stipulations of the contract or kung sa tingin mo pa din ay sobrang taas pa din to the point na excessive ito ay pwede kang mag file ng kaso for the court to determine whether it is excessive or not and in the process, for the court to determine the conscionable interest.
Even with the suspension of the Usury Law, it is settled that nothing in CB Circular No. 905 grants lenders a carte blanche authority to raise interest rates to levels which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (Berces v. Guingona, 311 Phil. 614, 620 (1995). Section 1 of Central Bank Circular No.905 ang siyang nagsabi na..."The rate of interest,including commissions, premiums, fees and other charges, on a loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or credits, regardless of maturity and whether secured or unsecured, that may be charged or collected by any person, whether natural or juridical, shall not be subject to any ceiling prescribed under or pursuant to the Usury Law, as amended.”
As held in Castro v. Tan ( G.R. No. 168940, November 24, 2009, 605 SCRA 231), The imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest on a money debt, even if knowingly and voluntarily assumed, is immoral and unjust. It is tantamount to a repugnant spoliation and an iniquitous deprivation of property, repulsive to the common sense of man. It has no support in law, in principles of justice, or in the human conscience nor is there any reason whatsoever which may justify such imposition as righteous and as one that may be sustained within the sphere of public or private morals (citing Ibarra v. Aveyro,37 Phil. 273, 282 (1917))
In the end, we have the courts of law to determine whether it is conscionable or not.
-
Additional information lang pandagdag sa mga nasabi na dito nila Sir Mico at ronronyjerardo.
In the first place, we are not compelled to agree on the interest rate/s stipulated by the bank or kung sino man na legally authorized to lend money. If you think na mataas and unconscionable ang interest rate na yon, pwede kang wag pumirma and instead look for banks na mas mababa ang ino-offer na interest rate. Pero once pumirma ka na, then you should abide by the stipulations of the contract or kung sa tingin mo pa din ay sobrang taas pa din to the point na excessive ito ay pwede kang mag file ng kaso for the court to determine whether it is excessive or not and in the process, for the court to determine the conscionable interest.
Even with the suspension of the Usury Law, it is settled that nothing in CB Circular No. 905 grants lenders a carte blanche authority to raise interest rates to levels which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (Berces v. Guingona, 311 Phil. 614, 620 (1995). Section 1 of Central Bank Circular No.905 ang siyang nagsabi na..."The rate of interest,including commissions, premiums, fees and other charges, on a loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or credits, regardless of maturity and whether secured or unsecured, that may be charged or collected by any person, whether natural or juridical, shall not be subject to any ceiling prescribed under or pursuant to the Usury Law, as amended.”
As held in Castro v. Tan ( G.R. No. 168940, November 24, 2009, 605 SCRA 231), The imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest on a money debt, even if knowingly and voluntarily assumed, is immoral and unjust. It is tantamount to a repugnant spoliation and an iniquitous deprivation of property, repulsive to the common sense of man. It has no support in law, in principles of justice, or in the human conscience nor is there any reason whatsoever which may justify such imposition as righteous and as one that may be sustained within the sphere of public or private morals (citing Ibarra v. Aveyro,37 Phil. 273, 282 (1917))
In the end, we have the courts of law to determine whether it is conscionable or not.
Thanks for this info Sir Habagat.