GR L 49327; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-49327; July 18, 1991
AMELIA C. ELAYDA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and SPOUSES PEDRO ROXAS and LEONORA T. ROXAS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Amelia C. Elayda filed a complaint to recover loans totaling P90,000.00 from respondents Spouses Pedro and Leonora Roxas, secured by post-dated checks and receipts. The spouses admitted receiving the loans but claimed full payment, alleging they had paid a total of P112,674.00, which included a P10,000.00 “kickback” and usurious interest at 4% per month. During trial, Elayda attempted to submit an accountant’s statement showing the total loan was P186,000.00, with payments of only P110,474.00, leaving a balance. The Trial Court rejected this evidence as contrary to her judicial admissions in the complaint.
The Trial Court dismissed Elayda’s complaint, finding the spouses had paid P112,674.00 on the P90,000.00 principal. Applying Article 1957 of the Civil Code on usurious transactions, it ordered Elayda to return the excess P22,674.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Elayda appealed to the Supreme Court, raising multiple alleged errors.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the lower courts regarding the actual loan amount, payments made, and the existence of usury.
RULING
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, upholding the factual conclusions of the lower courts. The core issue—determining the correct loan amount, the extent of payments, and the presence of usury—is factual. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law are reviewable in a petition for certiorari; factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive absent any recognized exception, none of which Elayda sufficiently established.
The Court emphasized that Elayda’s judicial admission in her complaint that the loan was P90,000.00 is binding under Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. Her attempt to later claim a higher amount was correctly rejected as an afterthought. Furthermore, her failure to specifically deny under oath the spouses’ allegation of usury in their amended answer constituted a judicial admission of the usurious transaction under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the lower courts correctly applied the law voiding the usurious interest and ordering the return of the excess payments made by the debtor-spouses.