NATIONAL ONION GROWERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION), VICENTE F. GOQUIOLAY, AND SALUD CHONG, R…

This Petition for Review on Certiorari challenges the
Decision of respondent Court of Appeals^[1]
in CA-G.R. No. 57290-R, affirming the Decision of the then Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Branch XIV, at Caloocan
City^[2]
in Civil Case No. C-2407.

The undisputed facts follow:

On 2 October 1969, petitioner, National Onion Grower Cooperative
Marketing Association, Inc. (NOGROCOMA) obtained a loan of P300,000.00 from
private respondent, Vicente Goquiolay, payable within one (1) year, with interest
at twelve (12%) per annum, payable in advance.

As security for the loan, petitioner executed in Goquiolay’s favor a real estate mortgage on its two (2) parcels of land located in Malabon, Rizal, together with the improvements thereon.  The mortgage was registered with the Register of Deeds on 3 October 1969.

On 2 December 1970,
the loan having been unpaid on maturity date, Goquiolay
demanded payment in writing from Petitioner. 
As the latter failed to pay, Goquiolay proceeded
to foreclose the mortgage extrajudicially.

 On 24 February 1971, Petitioner filed suit
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
at Caloocan
City, seeking to:  (a) declare the mortgage contract void ab initio for being
usurious; (b) recover from Goquiolay the usurious
interest on the loan; and (c) obtain a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to enjoin
foreclosure and sale at public auction.

The Trial Court had earlier granted the prayer for Preliminary
Injunction but since, in Goquiolay’s Answer, he had
abandoned the extrajudicial foreclosure and had, instead, claimed for judicial
foreclosure, the restraint was rendered moot and academic.

The crucial issue is whether or not Petitioner had, in fact,
received the total consideration of P300,000.00 as stipulated in the loan document.  Petitioner
maintains that of the said amount it had received only the sum of P195,000.00 inasmuch as P105,000.00 thereof was withheld as
advance payment of interest, or actually 35% of the loan, which is clearly
usurious for being beyond the maximum allowed by the Usury Law.

On the other hand, Goquiolay asserts that Petitioner received the entire
proceeds of the loan of P300,000.00 except for the amount of P36,000.00, which
was applied to the payment of interest at twelve (12%) percent.

Both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found, as established fact, that the
different amounts released to Petitioner (Exhibits “3”,
“4”, “5”, “6” and “7”) aggregated
P300,000.00, or the full amount of the loan proceeds.

As the Trial Court
had observed, in Petitioner’s reply to Goquiolay’s
letter of demand, dated 4 December 1970, “it had promised to pay within
15 days the amount of P300,000.00 with the corresponding interest”
(Exhibit “11”), no mention whatsoever having been made of any
usurious charges.  Thus, the disposition
of the case by the Trial Court as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the instant action is hereby dismissed and the
plaintiff, the National Onion Growers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc.
is hereby ordered to pay the defendant Vicente F. Goquiolay, the sum of P300,000.00 with 12% interest
per annum from October 2, 1970, within a period of ninety (90) days from receipt hereof, and in default of such payment the mortgaged
properties shall be sold at public auction in accordance with the law and
proceeds thereof applied to the satisfaction of this judgment.

“There is no pronouncement as to the payment of other
interests, as well as damages” (p. 52, Record on Appeal).

The Court of Appeals also found “no clear, positive and
convincing evidence to prove appellant’s (petitioner’s) allegations of
usury,” and fully affirmed the aforequoted
judgment.

Upon examination of the evidence, we agree with the express
conclusions arrived at, apart from the consideration that the findings of fact
made by lower Courts are generally entitled to great respect if not conclusive
on this Court.  We need only invoke what
has been reiterated in a long line of decisions, the exceptions to which do not obtain in this case.

“This court cannot set aside the express finding of the Court
of Appeals.  Time and again we have ruled
that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such
evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of
law that might have been committed by
the lower Court” (Tiongco v. de la Merced,
L-24426, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 89; Corona v. CA, L-62482, April 28,
1983, 121 SCRA 865; Baniqued vs. CA, L-47531,
February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 596).

“It has been well-settled that the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing
and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact being
conclusive” (Chan vs. CA, L-27488, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 737; Knecht v. CA, L-65114, February 23, 1988, 158 SCRA 80).

The full amount of the loan of P300,000.00 having been proven to
have been received by Petitioner, the Usury Law finds no application in this
case besides the fact that it is no longer in force.

“For sometime now, usury has been legally non-existent.  Interest can now be charged as lender and
borrower may agree upon.  The rules of Court in
regard to allegations of usury, procedural in nature, should be considered
repealed with retroactive effect” (Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill Co.,
L-30771, May 28, 1984, 129 SCRA 439).

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the judgment of
respondent Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed is hereby AFFIRMED.  Cost against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.

^[1] Per Justice Elias B. Asuncion, concurred in
by Justice Porfirio V. Sison
and Juan A. Sison.

^[2] Judge Serafin
Salvador, presiding.