FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242718. February 18, 2019.]

ADORACION Z. BELO , petitioner, vs. ANITA DIMAS-SAN JUAN,

REYNAN SAN JUAN, RYAN SAN JUAN AND ANNALYN SAN JUAN ,
respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated
February 18, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242718 — Adoracion Z. Belo, petitioner, vs. Anita Dimas-San
Juan, Reynan San Juan, Ryan San Juan and Annalyn San Juan, respondents.
The Motion for Extension of Time led by petitioner seeking an additional period
of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on November 13,
2018 within which to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED .
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant
Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure to
show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 109419 committed any
reversible error.
As correctly observed by the CA, circumstances in the case at bench re ect
badges of a pactum commissorium even without a stipulation for a creditor's
automatic appropriation of the mortgaged property. It highlighted the following: the
non-foreclosure and the fact that the dacion en pago and the mortgage contract being
inextricably linked because: a) the dacion en pago contract was executed by reason of
the same loan extended by petitioner to the respondents and; b) the subject of the
dacion en pago was the same property used as collateral for the same loan, without
any other additional consideration.
In Sps. Martires v. Chua, 1 we stated why foreclosure is preferred, viz.:
Considering that the disputed property was mortgaged to secure the
payment of [the mortgagor's] obligation, the most logical and practical thing
that she could have done, if she is unable to pay her debt, is to wait for it to be
foreclosed. She stands to lose less of the value of the subject property if the
same is foreclosed, rather than if the title thereto is directly transferred to [the
mortgagees]. This is so because in foreclosure, unlike in the present case where
ownership of the property was assigned to [the mortgagees], [the mortgagor]
can still claim the balance from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale, if there be
any. In such a case, she could still recover a portion of the value of the subject
property rather than losing it completely by assigning its ownership to [the
mortgagees]. 2
Moreover, even granting that the issue of usurious interest was merely raised
belatedly on appeal, it is worth emphasizing that an appellate court is clothed with
ample authority to pass upon matters not assigned as errors in the appeal if they are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve
the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice. 3 Hence, we nd
proper the reduction motu proprio by the appellate court of the stipulated interest rate
for being contrary to morals, blatantly iniquitous, exorbitant, and unconscionable.
However, the CA ordered in its dispositive portion that the respondents were to
pay petitioner Adoracion Z. Belo the principal amount of P1,600,000.00, plus interest of
12% per annum until fully paid. To this, we nd it necessary to modify the legal interest
rate imposed pursuant to jurisprudence and Circular No. 799, series of 2013 of the
Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas 4 which took effect on July 1, 2013.
Hence, in light of prevailing rules and jurisprudence, 5 we hold that the 12% per
annum interest on the principal amount reckoned from July 13, 2010, which is the
execution of the promissory note, shall be only until June 30, 2013. Beginning July 1,
2013, the legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the total amount shall be
imposed until fully paid.
ACCORDINGLY , the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM the assailed July 20,
2018 Decision and October 18, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 109419
with MODIFICATION that from July 1, 2013, the legal interest to be paid is 6% per
annum of the total amount due until the full payment thereof.
SO ORDERED ."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. 707 Phil. 34 (2013).

2. Id. at 50.

3. Mendoza vs. Bautista, 493 Phil. 804, 813 (2005).

4. Issued on June 21, 2013; It provides that the rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of
any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of an
express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum.

5. As elucidated in ECE Realty and Development, Inc. vs. Hernandez, 740 Phil. 789 (2014).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com