Article 8.

Judicial Decisions form part of the legal system

77 PHIL 1066 (No. 49090; February 28, 1947)

Miranda vs. Imperial

Description

EN BANC [GR No. L-49090. February 28, 1947.] TEODORA L. VDA. DE MIRANDA AND
OTHERS , applicants , appellants , against FELICIANO IMPERIALA ND JUANA DE IMPERIAL ,
Defendants-appellants . Mr. Manuel M. Calleja and Mr. Ramon C. Fernandez, on behalf of
the appellants. D. Toribio P. Perez, in representation of the appeals. SYLLABUS 1. JUDGES;
COURT OF APPEALS; CONCLUSION OR PRONOUNCEMENT AS A RULE OF
JURISPRUDENCE. - Only the judgments of this Supreme Court feel jurisprudence or
doctrine in this jurisdiction. However, this does not mean that a conclusion or
pronouncement of the Court of Appeals that covers some point of law not yet resolved in
our jurisprudence may serve as a legal rule to lower courts, and that such conclusion or
pronouncement is raised to doctrine if, after Of being tested in the crucible of analysis and
judicial review, this Supreme Court will find that it had merits and carats sufficient for its
consecration as a rule of jurisprudence. 2. ANTICRESIS; APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF
USURE. - (a) Anticresis known in this country as the vernacular of "sangla" or "saop" can
not be prosecuted and declared as usury, unless usury itself is raised as an "issue," a point
Litigation between the parties, in accordance with the procedural rules established on the
matter; (B) and for such a contract to be considered and declared usurious it is not enough
that the goods of the property given the anticresis, when perceived by the creditor, exceed
somewhat the legal interest rates, but it is necessary that the excess be so Palpable, so
repulsive and so shocking to the conscience that necessarily the feeling that the contract
has been set to hide the avian intention to infringe or evade the law of usury;

DECISION

BRIONES , M : p

This is a pre-war affair. The lawsuit was filed before the Court of First Instance of Albay on
November 25, 1941, that is, almost on the eve of the outbreak of the Pacific War. The Court
delivered its judgment on March 17, 1943.

The case was brought before this Supreme Court, by virtue of the appeal filed by the
plaintiff on June 9, 1943. Before it could be decided, the file was burned together with The
other files of this Court in the conflagration of Manila on the occasion of the battle of
liberation. What we have, therefore, before Us is a file reconstituted with documents
provided by the appellant's lawyers, namely: ( a ) copies of the record on appeal; ( B ) copies
of the allegation submitted by the appellant's lawyers . It is alleged in the lawsuit that before
November 17, 1938, the conjugados defendados, Feliciano Imperial and Juana de Imperial ,
owed to Elias Imperial the amount of P1,000; That in consideration of this debt and in order
to guarantee their payment, they had ceded the possession and enjoyment of three parcels
of paddy land owned by him to the said Imperial Elias ; That on that date November 17,
1938, the defendants proposed to the applicant, Teodora L. Vda. Of Miranda , that lent them
the amount of P1,000 to rescue of Elias Imperial the lands, She being the creditor of the
place of Elias under the same terms and conditions of the contract of antichresis concluded
with the latter; That as the applicant had the requested amount and, furthermore, the
defendant is her sister-in-law, being the widow of a brother of the latter, she accepted the
proposition, effectively delivering the amount of P1,000 to the defendants, who in turn
returned it To Elias Imperial for the rescue of the farms; That, in the case of relatives, the
contract was not reduced to writing, but after the ransom and having been recorded by Elias
Imperial at the foot of the property documents on the three parcels of land, said documents
were delivered in the same act of redemption To the applicant that he was present in the
company of the defendant, As proof of the loan and the transfer of the new contract of
antichresis; That since then the applicant has been enjoying the products, receiving its share
in the harvests corresponding to 1939 and 1940 for two harvests per year, and in the first
harvest of 1941, or a total of 5 harvests since November 17, 1938 until April 1941; That the
applicant was no longer able to enjoy the second harvest of 1941, that is to say, the harvest
for October, since the defendants resolved from then on to take possession of that harvest
and the subsequent harvest to the present; That the harvest collected by the defendants in
October 1941, and which belonged to the plaintiff, was 50 cavanes de palay, whose market
price was at P2.50, that is, a total amount of P120. The applicant therefore asks that "
Regarding the first ground of action the defendants defend themselves by claiming that
they only received from the applicant the amount of P500, to which were added other P500
to rescue the lands of Elias Imperial ; And that said P500 debt was more than paid with the
products of the land received by the applicant in 5 consecutive harvests, "thereby
automatically extinguishing the contractual rights and obligations of the parties." Regarding
the second ground of action, they deny it, and say that the harvest collected in October
1941 and all that were later collected legally belonged to them of warrants; And that this
harvest of October, as in previous years, I report as a participation 70 cavanes de palay. The
defendants also raise in their defense a claim alleging (1) that between the applicant and
the defendant, Juana de Imperial , a verbal agreement was concluded under which it
received from it the sum of P500 to recover the said lands, On the understanding that the
applicant would make all its products under

the same terms and conditions of the previous agreement with Elias Imperial until its credit
was entirely paid for such products; (2) that, in effect, the redemption was effected by
returning the documents to Juana with a note of cancellation of the debt at the foot of the
same, but that later the plaintiff lent those documents under the pretext of familiarizing
himself with the adjoining the lands, Being this the explanation of how the documents went
to rest in the hands of the plaintiff holding them until the day of the hearing; (3) that, in
addition to the three parcels in question, the applicant enjoyed the products of a fourth
parcel of the defendants, amounts to 10 cavanes de palay in each harvest; (4) that of the 4
parcels of land the applicant received as a share in the 5 harvests that a total of 400 cavans
of palay collected, and that the dig was then quoted at P2.50 in the market; (5) which,
therefore, the applicant made no less than P1,000 with the products received by it, and
deducting from that sum the P500 owed by the defendants, plus P100 as interest at the
legal rate, is still in favor Of these a balance of P400, After having seen the matter, the Court
rendered its judgment in which the following facts are conclusively proven: (1) that for some
10 years prior to November 17, 1938, the defendants owed Elias Imperial the amount of
P1,000 ; (2) that between the creditor and the debtors an accessory contract of anticresis
had been concluded under which he would enjoy as he actually enjoyed during that 10-year
period of all the products of the three areas mentioned, These products being considered as
interests of money borrowed; (3) that during all the time that Elias Imperial had under his
possession and enjoyed the land, not a single grain of palay produced was applied to pay or
amortize the capital of the loan; (4) that on November 17, 1938, the defendants received
from P-0000, as they claim, but P1,000, to redeem the estates from Elias Imperial being the
agreement between the parties that the claimant would subrogate (to substitute) as a
creditor In place of said Imperial Elias under the same terms and conditions of the contract
of antichresis concluded with him; That "after careful consideration of the evidence and all
the concomitant circumstances, the Court concludes, and thus declares, that the plaintiff is
presently liable to the defendants P1,000 and that the agreement between the parties was
that the applicant would receive The products of the 3 parcels previously put in anticresis in
favor of Imperial Elias , From the facts established in the judgment, as it is extracted, it is
evident that the contract of antichresis on this matter is defined in Article 1885 of the Civil
Code which states: "The contracting parties may stipulate that Interest of the debt with the
fruits of the property given in anticresis . " However, the court a quo, rather than apply that
article as it should by imperative of the facts declared proven and established at trial, makes
the following statement: "However, notwithstanding this agreement, the claim of the
defendants that The amount of the products received by the applicant must be applied to
the payment of the principal of its debt after deduction of interest at the statutory rate must
be sustained. That is to say, The court applied the case not to Article 1885 already cited,
but to article 1881 of the Civil Code, whose text is: "Through antichresis, the creditor
acquires the right to receive the fruits of a property of his debtor with the obligation to
apply them To the payment of interest, if any, and then to the capital of his credit . " And the
Court bases its conclusion on the judgment rendered by the previous Court of Appeals in
the case of Santa Rosa v. Noble (RG No. 43769, 35 Off Gaz., 2734, The Lawyer's

Journal, Vol. V , No. 23, P.1109), presentation by Judge Hon. Jose Lopez Vito. 43769, 35 Off.
Gaz., 2734; The Lawyer's Journal, Vol. V , No. 23, p. 1109), presentation of Judge Hon. Jose
Lopez Vito. 43769, 35 Off. Gaz., 2734; The Lawyer's Journal, Vol. V , No. 23, p. 1109),
presentation of Judge Hon. Jose Lopez Vito. So the court a quo , after making the
corresponding arithmetic operation applying, first, the payment of interest, and then to the
principal of the debt, awards for the applicant a balance of P435.17 and orders To continue
to apply the products of the land until payment is complete, or that the defendants settle it
once with interest at a rate of 6 percent a year from May 1, 1941 Against the ruling thus
dictated by the plaintiff Has filed this appeal, raising only questions of law, namely: that the
Court erred in not applying to the present case in all its rigor to Article 1885 of the Civil
Code; Which the court could not, from a fiat , Create arbitrarily for the parties a contract not
concluded between them; That Article 1885 specifically refers to one type of antichresis and
Article 1881 to another; That when the agreement is, as in the present case, that the
products of the property given in antichresis be compensated with the interests of the debt,
no part of the products should be applied to the amortization of capital; And therefore, she,
the appellant, has the right to be refunded the capital of her credit, that is, the amount of
P1,000, plus the corresponding products or interest. No part of the products should be
applied to the amortization of capital; And therefore, she, the appellant, has the right to be
refunded the capital of her credit, that is, the amount of P1,000, plus the corresponding
products or interest. No part of the products should be applied to the amortization of
capital; And therefore, she, the appellant, has the right to be refunded the capital of her
credit, that is, the amount of P1,000, plus the corresponding products or interest. The
Tribunal a quo bases its judgment in the aforementioned judgment of the Court of Appeal,
believing that these are entirely analogous cases, mainly because both come from the same
region - the bicolana - and they refer to a very common contract in that region, The
contract called therein vulgarly "sangla" or "pledge," and that in the Visayas where the
Cebuan dialect is spoken and in Mindanao it is called "saop" and also "pledge" sometimes.
It seems superfluous to say that only the judgments of this Supreme Court feel
jurisprudence or doctrine in this jurisdiction. However, this does not mean that a conclusion
or pronouncement of the Court of Appeals that covers some point of law not yet resolved in
our jurisprudence may serve as a legal rule to lower courts, and that such conclusion or
pronouncement is raised to doctrine if, after Of being tested in the crucible of analysis and
judicial review, we will find that it had enough merit and carat for its consecration as a rule
of jurisprudence. To this end, and to this end, we have carefully and carefully examined the
judgment of the Court of Appeals in the said case of Santa Rosa v. Noble, proceeding, as
has been said, Unsubscribed - we are not now called for it, nor need we do - the interesting
findings that the Court of Appeals made in that judgment, we believe, however , that the
Court a quo erred in applying it to this case, as there is between them Cases fundamental
differences, namely:

First difference : in the case of the Court of Appeals usury was an "issue," a key issue in
controversy. That is why the Court says in its sentence "But the defendants argue that the
contract contained in Exhibit E is usurious, which raises the question of whether Law No.
2655 known as the Usury Law that establishes the interest rate that It is permissible to
charge on loans, it is applicable to contracts of antichresis. " Although not expressly stated,
the Court of Appeals, in finding that the Law of Usury (the taking of excessive interest; )was
applicable, thereby establishing the collectible interest at the statutory rate of 6 percent,
practically ejuicio and published as a usufruct(Article 467 of the Civil Code defines usufruct
as the "right to enjoy the property of others with the obligation to preserve its form and
substance, unless the title of its constitution or the law authorizes otherwise") the contract of
antichresis of which it was about. In the case before us, the question of usury was never
raised in either the allegations or the trial; And in the sentence there is no de facto (in fact,
or in effect, whether by right or not. )pronouncement on usury; And as it may be in this appeal,
there are no more questions of law than that the facts set forth in the judgment are
established and admitted without discussion, this is that our faculty of revision must be
written and inflexible to these facts, without being Allowed to go beyond your radio. After
all, it is not surprising that the defendants did not raise any question about usury, since for
10 years they had been indebted to Elias Imperial without apparently differences that
jeopardize their relations (Elias declared at the hearing in favor of the defendants ), Second
difference : It is evident that the anticresis dealt with in the case of Santa Rosa against Noble
is defined in Article 1881 of the Civil Code, anticresis in which "the creditor acquires the
right to receive the fruits of a property of his debtor the Obligation to apply them to
the payment of interest, if any, and then to the capital of their credit. " Here is what the
Court of Appeal says in its sentence that we comment on this point: "As to whether the
same rate established by the Law against Usury should be applied when there is an express
provision that the fruits be compensated with the Interest of the debt in accordance with
article 1885, quérre: this being the case that is submitted today to our consideration, In
contrast, the antichresis dealt with in the present case is that defined in Article 1885, which
provides "that contractors may stipulate that the interest of the debt be compensated with
the fruits of the property given in anticresis."Here is the final pronouncement of the Court
on this matter: "After a careful consideration of the evidence and all attending
circumstances, the court concludes, and therefore holds, that the plaintiff actually lent the
defendants P1,000, and that the agreement between That the parties was the plaintiff would
recei v e the products of the three parcels of land formerly with v eyed in anticresis to Elias
Imperial as interests on loan Said Until the same is paid . " If, according to the
aforementioned court's finding , the agreement that the products of the farms are offset by
the interest on the debt, in accordance with article 1885 of the Civil Code, it is arbitrary to
change it judicially, making for the parties a contract Which they have not celebrated, or to
say more specifically, transforming the truly agreed pact into something that falls under an
article of code that was neither in the mind nor in the will of the contractors. Article 1255 of
the Civil Code prescribes that "the contracting parties may establish the covenants, causes
and conditions they deem fit, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, or public order."
This excludes from the contracts the fiaf ; Judieial Courts may interpret contracts; What they
can not do is mold them, forge them for the parts.

We agree with the Court of Appeal that the contract called "sangla" or "pledge" (on
property) in Bicol, "saop" or "pledge" in Visayas and Mindanao, does indeed have the
antiseesis (antithesis normally means simply "opposite" )earaeters and therefore may
Considered as such. In addition to the sale of a retro pact, this agreement is the most
common and commonplace in our towns and rural neighborhoods - from the hands of
peasants and peasants, to improve and expand their crops, and to buy new lands with which
to increase their Possessions, and to marry their children and equip them, and sometimes
even to give a proper and fitting burial to their dead. And why not say so ? The unfortunate
passion for the game sometimes culminates in this contract to embitter existence, if not to
work the ruin of the small owner. The question that we now have to determine is: is it
automatically or ministerially applicable to the law of usury , as it seems to be inferred from
the judgment appealed? Undoubtedly not. Antieresis, as a contract - either under article
1881, already under article 1885 of the Civil Code - is not necessarily usurious; Can be, that
yes, usuuraria. But in order to be able to declare itself, it is not only absolutely necessary
that usury be an "issue", a contentious point in the allegations and in the trial, so that each
party has its "day in court," that is, Which can be properly and adequately defended, but
also that it must be demonstrated and established positively that usury is of such
proportions that, upon repugnance to conscience, Incline the mood to ereer that the
contract has been used as a disguise or device to violate or evade the law of usury. The
reason for this is quite simple: in antiheresis there is a contingent element, random, by
nature. The perception of the products by the creditor, which is its main characteristic, is
subject to several contingencies and eventualities. There may be a bad harvest, or none at
all, either because it has destroyed a typhoon, or because the hoops have overflowed, or
because a band of locusts has devastated the sowing and planting, or because deep social
upheavals have subverted the peace. Order preventing the tillage of the fields, etcetera,
etcetera. Thus, in the case of antichresis, articles 2, 3 and 8 of Law No. 2655 on usury, since
these refer to the perception of a fixed number of products: the debtor has to deliver
indeclinably, or their equivalent in money, whether good or bad, whether or not there
is. The fact that sometimes in the anticresis the amount of the fruits, when making the
liquidation, exceeds the rates set by the law of usury, does not make the usurious contract,
because the law assumes that such excess is of the dividend that collects The creditor in
exchange for the premium of risks and contingencies that he has paid over the principal of
his credit. In American jurisprudence we also know certain types of contract similar to our
"sangla" or "saop," as evidenced by the following authorities: "In view, however, of the rule
that a creditor's return need not be limited to the statutory rate when it is affected by a
contingency putting the whole of it at risk, a contract is ordinarily not usurious under which
the creditor is to receive, In consideration of his or her loan or forbearance, property or
services of uncertain value, even though the probable value is greater than lawful
interest, unless the excess is not palpable as a slow to corrupt attempt to violate or evade
the usury laws, unless the contract is Made for the purpose of such violation or evasion. " 1
(66 CJ, 212.)

"Where the lender is to receive something else than money for his loan, the property or
services, the value of such profit being necessarily uncertain, the contract is not usurious,
even though the probability is greater than legal interest, unless the consideration is given Is
so palpably in excess of the certain profit allowed by law to show a corrupt intent to
violate the usury laws. " 2 39 Cyc. 259; Wright v s . McAlexander, 11 Ala., 236; Rapier v .
Gulf City Peper C., Ala., 126. (102 Southern Reporter, pp. 204.) "So, an agreement that
instead of interest, the lender of money should receive the parts and profits of certain land
for a term of years, is not usurious where no intention to evade the statute is shown, and
the fact that such rents and profits Happen to warrant. " 3 (Webb on Usury, p.85).

Manresa, lecturing on the relative conveniences of antichresis, although he sometimes lends

himself as an instrument of usury, makes the following observations: "By proceeding in this
way, the Authors of the Code responded with great precision to a need imposed by the
modern principles in which the laws of mutuality are inspired, according to which there is no
economic or juridical reason to condemn antichresis. In this way, damage and prejudice to
the debtor who, in the alternative, were unavoidable, since experience had clearly
demonstrated that, despite the prohibition of laws, the anti-retic pact was very much in
practice, because the provisions Prohibiting, disguising the agreement with the form or the
name of sales to the challenge pact, so that far from favoring the borrower, as proposed by
the legislator, caused great break, Since it could not grant the creditor the enjoyment of the
fruits to apply them to the amortization of interest or to the partial payment of capital, they
were obliged to file the property in the form indicated, disposing of a property that could
hardly be re-acquired . "(Manresa, Com. Cod. Espanol, tome 12, page 545.)

The rule, therefore, is, or must be, the following: ( a ) the anticresis known in this country as
the vernacular of "sangla" or "saop" can not be prosecuted and declared as usurious,
unless usury In itself, an "issue" is raised as a contentious point between the parties, in
accordance with the procedural rules studied on the matter; ( B ) and in order to be
considered and declared usurious it is not enough that the property products given in
antichresis, when perceived by the creditor, exceed somewhat the legal interest rates, but
it is necessary that the excess be so palpable ( able to be touched or felt.) , So
repulsive(offensive )and so shocking to the conscience that necessarily the feeling that the
contract has been set to hide the avian intention to infringe or evade the law of usury; ( C )
in the absence of these circumstances, the sangla or saop shall be respected and its
compliance shall be permitted under article 1881 or article 1885 of the Civil Code, as the
case may be, and the courts shall not change the terms of Anticresis, which must be
between the parties. The present case offers some difficulties with regard to the ruling to be
rendered. The applicant requests that the defendants be ordered to pay in their favor a
mortgage document on the three parcels of land in order to guarantee the payment of
the P1,000 tax, "by fixing in that document a period of three months for

the Payment, or the term that is reasonable according to the prudent judgment of the Court
and by an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, or its place, any other remedy that
may be appropriate. In our view, this would only delay the final disposition and liquidation
of the matter to the detriment of the parties and expeditious administration of justice. The
defendants of the parcels of land having been transferred to the plaintiffs by the defendants
and having enjoyed their fruits after October 1941, the plaintiffs demonstrated their
agreement to terminate the enticretico contract ((civil law) An agreement by which a debtor
gives a creditor the use of real property to be able to pay interest and principal of the debt. )by
filing the petition On November 25, 1941, not to recuse these parcels of land, but to
demand payment of the debt with the corresponding interest from that date, after
revocation of the judgment appealed, we issued the following ruling: (1) The defendants are
ordered to pay the claimants the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000), the amount of
the credit of the latter, with interests at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, as of November
25, 1941 That the claim is filed, and the judicial costs, and that sum must be paid with
interest and the costs to the plaintiffs, or deposited in the Court of First Instance of Albay
within a period of three months counted from the official lifting of this moratorium; (2) In
the absence of payment, as ordered in the above paragraph, the three parcels of land on
which this case deals will be sold by the Sheriff in public auction in accordance with the law
on collection of mortgage credit; (3) In the meantime, no payment shall be made, as
ordered in this section, of the sum owed with its legal interests and the judicial costs shall
pass as a preferential lien on the three parcels of land in question. That is how it is
commanded. Moran, Pres., Feria, Bengzon, Padilla and Tuason MM., Are satisfied.

Separate Opinions PARAS , J., dissenting : Although the trial court held that the plaintiff
actually loaned the defendants P1,000, and that the agreement between the parties was that
the plaintiff would receive the products of the three parcels of land formerly conveyed in
antichresis to Elias Imperial as interest on said loan Until the same is paid, "he nevertheless
sustained, citing the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Santa Rosa v s. Noble
(35 Off Gaz., 2724), "the contention of the defendants that the value of the products
received by the plaintiff, after deducting therefrom the interests at legal rate, should be
applied to the principal of their debt." The plaintiff has appealed; Does not controvert the
correctness of the appraisal made by the trial court of the value of the products received by
her from the lots in question; 1885 of the Civil Code which provides that "the contracting
parties may stipulate that the interest of the debt be set off against the fruits of the estate
given in antichresis." In other words, it is the view of the plaintiff that the products,
regardless of their value, should be in payment of interest on the defendant's loan of
P1,000. This is also the view expressed in the majority opinion.

I dissent. The right of the contacting parties to establish any pacts, clauses, and conditions
they may deem advisable, is subject to the proviso that "they are not contrary to law,
morals, or public order." (Article 1255, Civil Code.) After the enactment of the Usury Law
( Act No. 2655 ), which fixes the rate of interest, in the absence of express stipulation, at six
per centum per annum (section 1) and provides 8) that "all under which payment is to be
made in agriculture products or seeds or in any other kind of commodities shall also be null
and void unless they provide that commodities or commodities shall be appraised at the
time when the obligation Falls due at the current local market price, " Article 1885 of the
Civil Code must be considered modified, if not repealing clause (section 11) of the Usury
Law .In other words, any antichresis agreement, under either article 1881 or article 1885,
may now be validly enforced only in the light of the provisions of the Usury Law . The
unrestricted freedom conceded in article 1855 was good before the Government had laid
down its policy regarding interest on loans. "Article 1881 sanctions, therefore, the general
rule that must govern necessarily and necessarily provided there is no special pact indicated,
and 1885 establishes the exception of that rule in the case that stipulated such a pact. "This
is a consequence of the freedom granted for the fixing of interests, since the legal rate
abolished by the law of 1855, the parties can freely determine the amount and condition of
these interests, being able to be perceived the same in money that in kind, and , Therefore,
to compensate them with the fruits. " (12 Manresa, Civil Code, page 482.)

The majority argue that the Usury Law can not be applied because the defense of usury is
not set up. The claimant made no less than P1,000 in the products received by it, and
deducting from that sum the P500 owed by the defendants, but P100 In terms of interest at
the legal rate, it is still in favor of the latter a balance of P400, so they ask for a judgment
against the plaintiff for the latter amount. "If this allegation did not amount to a charge that
the plaintiff received more than The legal interest, It was sufficient to apprise the court and
the plaintiff that it was the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had no right to
apply the products entirely in compensation of the interest notwithstanding their
agreement, and this issue should be decided in the light of existing law Which was not
necessary for the defendant to specify in his answer. We would not be digressing from the
issues raised by the parties, or creating new ones, by simply adjudicating concrete cases
conformably to law. "It is clear that the Courts may in each case determine the nature of the
obligation and the conditions attached thereto, if a particular pact is constituted for the
purposes of law. (11 Manresa Civil Code, page 550.)

The contingent character of the arrangement contemplated by Article 1885, can not warrant
its continued existence. The Usury Law , which is later and hence controlling controlling,
protects borrowers and at the same time eliminate the element of change that may prove
disadvantageous to lenders who to be paid in agricultural products. The appealed judgment
should be affirmed.

Paul, Perfecto and Yarn, JJ., Concur. Footnotes 1. "After careful consideration of the evidence
and the concomitant circumstances, the Court concludes, and thus declares, that the
plaintiff is presently lodged with the defendants P1,000, and that it is agreed between the
parties that the plaintiff He would receive the proceeds of the three parcels of land
previously given in anticreease to Elias Imperial as interest ten said loan , until he himself
was paid. " 1. In view, however, of the rule that a creditor's credit should not be limited to
the legal rate when it is affected by a contingency that puts everything at risk, a
contract will not ordinarily be usurious when the creditor receives in consideration of
your loan or largess, property or services of uncertain value, although this is higher than the
rate or legal interest, unless the excess is so palpable that denuestre a corrupt intention of v
iolar oe v Add the usury law or unless the contract was made for the purpose of the v
iolacion oe v asion "(66 CJ, 212.) 2. Where the contract is for the lender RECIDA something
other than your loan, that is, in kind or services, the value of such anecessarily uncertain
profit, the contract is not usurious although v alue likely be greater than the Legal interest,
unless such conduct is so palpably in excess of the gain permitted by law that it is inferred
from and demonstrates the vicious intention of infringing the usury laws. "(39 Cy., 959;
Wright v s. McAlexander, 11 Ala., 236; Rapier v s. Gulf City Paper Co., 77 Ala., 126.) 3. Thus, a
contract in which, instead of interest, the lender receives the income earned from a certain
land for a period of years, is not usury if it is not shown that there has been an attempt to
evade the law; And the fact that such rentals and rewards amount to more than the rate or
legal interest makes the contract usurious . "(Webb on Usura, page 85.)