Rustia v.

Rivera
G.R. No. 156903. November 24, 2006.

Petitioners: Sps. Carlos and Teresita Rustia

Respondent: Emerita Rivera

Facts:

- Emerita Rivera filed a complaint for a sum of money against Sps. Rustia and Rosemarie Rocha.
- Rivera alleged that Sps Rustia obtained a loan of P130,000 from her, payable within 30 days
without need of prior demand.
- As security for the loan, Sps Rustia executed a promissory note, with Rocha as their co-maker.
- The loan bears an interest of 5% per month.
- Sps. Rustia paid the interest corresponding to the period from Jan 1991 to Mar 1994. Thereafter,
despite Rivera’s written demands, they failed to pay interest or the principal obligation.
- In Rivera’s complaint, he is praying for the Sps Rustia to pay the loan, the accrued interest, and
attorney’s fees.
- Sps Rustia filed a motion to dismiss. The MeTC denied it.
- Sps Rustia filed an answer, admitting that Rivera did extend a loan of P130k to them. HOWEVER,
they denied having agreed to pay interest thereon. They alleged that the payments were for the
settlement of the principal obligation and in fact, they overpaid P123,500. Hence, they are
asking for a refund of their alleged overpayment.
- Rivera offered in evidence Sps. Rustia’s promissory note and Teresita Rustia’s letter agreeing to
pay 5% monthly interest. Teresita denied such and said that the delivered amount was an
investment to Rivera’s business and that the monthly payment of P6500 corresponds to her
share in the purchase.
- Trial court ruled in favor of Rivera, ordering Sps Rustia to pay
- On appeal by Sps Rustia, RTC affirmed MeTC.
- Sps Rustia filed a motion for reconsideration. Denied by the RTC.
- Sps Rustia filed a petition for review with the CA, denied.

Issue: Whether Article 1956 of the Civil Code providing that no interest shall be due unless expressly
stipulated in writing applies?

Ruling:

- Trial court found that Teresita Rustia sent a letter to Rivera, begging Rivera’s indulgence
regarding her difficulty and that of her husband in paying the 5% monthly interest on their
P130,000 loan.
- This was upheld by the RTC and CA.
- This letter proves that Sps Rustia agreed to pay interest.
- It is basic that findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by CA, are binding and conclusive
upon the SC.
- Rivera is entitled to the payment of interests on the subject loan.
- Petition denied.