The Supreme Court held that while excessively high interest rates (in this case, 6% per month or 72% per annum) are against public policy and therefore void, this does not invalidate the entire loan agreement. The principal debt remains enforceable, and the creditor is entitled to recover the principal amount, along with legal interest from the date of demand. This ruling protects borrowers from predatory lending practices while ensuring lenders can still recover the original loan amount, promoting fairness and stability in financial transactions.

Mortgage vs. Morals: When is Interest So High It’s Illegal?

This case, Spouses David B. Carpo and Rechilda S. Carpo v. Eleanor Chua and Elma Dy Ng, involves a loan with a staggeringly high interest rate and the subsequent foreclosure of a property. The Carpo spouses took out a loan from Chua and Ng, secured by a real estate mortgage. When they failed to pay, the mortgage was foreclosed. The Carpos then sought to annul the mortgage, arguing the excessive interest rate invalidated the entire agreement. This brought to the forefront the complex interplay between contractual freedom and the legal limits on interest rates, especially when a mortgage is involved. This case grapples with the question of just how high is too high when it comes to interest, and what happens to a loan when rates cross the line.

The heart of the matter lies in the agreed-upon interest rate of 6% per month, which translates to an annual rate of 72%. The Supreme Court took a firm stance against such exorbitant rates, citing a consistent line of cases where similar stipulations were invalidated. The legal basis for this stems from Article 1306 of the Civil Code, which allows parties to freely contract, but with the crucial caveat that agreements must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Usurious interest rates, the Court has repeatedly held, fall afoul of these limitations.

However, the invalidity of the interest rate does not automatically void the entire loan. The Court referred to the landmark case of Briones v. Cammayo, which clarifies that a loan with usurious interest comprises both a principal and an accessory stipulation. The principal stipulation is the obligation to repay the debt, while the accessory stipulation concerns the interest. According to the Court, these are divisible. The illegality affects only the accessory stipulation, leaving the principal obligation intact. As emphasized in Briones v. Cammayo:

…[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.”

Building on this principle, the Court has consistently affirmed the validity of the principal loan obligation while invalidating the associated interest rates. This approach is not only legally sound but also practically fair, as it prevents borrowers from unjustly enriching themselves by escaping their repayment obligations altogether. Furthermore, it prevents lenders from imposing predatory terms that exploit borrowers’ vulnerabilities. This nuanced approach provides a balance between protecting borrowers and ensuring the enforceability of legitimate debts.

It’s important to note that while the action to annul a usurious interest rate does not prescribe, the same cannot be said for an action to annul the real estate mortgage itself. In this case, the RTC initially dismissed the Carpos’ complaint based on prescription and laches, the latter referring to the unreasonable delay in asserting a right. The RTC incorrectly applied the prescriptive period for voidable contracts, arguing that the Carpos’ consent was vitiated by undue influence. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding no evidence of undue influence.

To establish undue influence, it must be shown that one party took improper advantage of their power over the will of another, depriving them of reasonable freedom of choice. Article 1337 of the Civil Code outlines the circumstances to consider, including confidential relationships, mental weakness, ignorance, or financial distress. While the Carpos were undoubtedly in financial distress, this alone is insufficient to prove undue influence. The Court emphasized that their free agency must have been destroyed, compelling them to act against their own will. The absence of such evidence proved fatal to their claim.

Moreover, the Court found the Carpos guilty of laches. They failed to challenge the validity of the mortgage during the foreclosure proceedings and only raised the issue when faced with a writ of possession. Their delay in asserting their rights prejudiced the respondents and justified the dismissal of their complaint. The Court of Appeals’ observations on this point are illuminating:

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?

In a related matter, the Court addressed the propriety of the Court of Appeals’ decision to annul the RTC’s orders suspending the enforcement of the writ of possession. The Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, reiterating the ministerial duty of the RTC to issue a writ of possession to the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure. This duty is so compelling that it cannot be stayed by a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or foreclosure proceedings.

The distinction between interlocutory and final orders also came into play. The RTC’s order suspending the writ of possession was deemed interlocutory because its effect was provisional, contingent on the outcome of the annulment action. As such, it was properly assailed through a special civil action for certiorari, as opposed to an appeal, which is reserved for final orders. The Court emphasized that allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would lead to a protracted and inefficient legal process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether an excessively high interest rate invalidated the entire loan agreement and the real estate mortgage securing it. The court ultimately ruled that only the interest rate was void, not the principal obligation.
What interest rate was considered excessive?	The court deemed an interest rate of 6% per month (72% per annum) as excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, and exorbitant, thus violating public policy.
What happens when an interest rate is found to be usurious?	When an interest rate is usurious, it is considered void, meaning it cannot be enforced. However, the underlying loan agreement remains valid, and the borrower is still obligated to repay the principal amount.
Can a borrower recover payments made under a usurious interest rate?	Yes, borrowers may have the right to recover interest payments made in excess of the legal rate, depending on the specific circumstances and applicable laws.
What is undue influence, and how does it relate to contracts?	Undue influence occurs when someone takes improper advantage of their power over another’s will, depriving them of freedom of choice. This can invalidate a contract if it is proven that the influenced party did not genuinely consent.
What is laches, and how did it affect this case?	Laches refers to the unreasonable delay in asserting a legal right, which prejudices the opposing party. In this case, the borrowers were guilty of laches because they waited too long to challenge the mortgage’s validity.
What is a writ of possession, and when is it issued?	A writ of possession is a court order directing someone to deliver possession of property to another party. In foreclosure cases, it’s typically issued to the winning bidder after the redemption period expires.
Is the issuance of a writ of possession discretionary?	No, the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is generally considered a ministerial duty of the court, meaning it must be issued upon proper application.

In conclusion, the Carpo v. Chua case reaffirms the principle that excessively high interest rates are against public policy and unenforceable, but this does not invalidate the underlying loan agreement. The case also underscores the importance of timely asserting one’s rights and the distinction between interlocutory and final orders in legal proceedings. It serves as a reminder to both borrowers and lenders to exercise caution and seek legal advice when entering into loan agreements involving real estate mortgages.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Spouses David B. Carpo and Rechilda S. Carpo, G.R. NOS. 150773 & 153599, September 30, 2005