Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 789 views

    Rono vs. Gomez (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Agli Dakling
    1. Cristobal Roño received a loan of P4,000 in Japanese fiat currency from Jose Gomez in 1944 with the agreement to repay the loan one year later in the prevailing currency. 2. After one year, Gomez sued Roño to collect the debt. The court ruled in favor of Gomez and ordered Roño to pay P4,000 in Philippine currency, which was the prevailing currency at the time of repayment. 3. Roño argued this was usurious as the Japanese currency he received was only worth P100 in Philippine currency. However, the Supreme Court ruled the contract was aleatory as both parties agreed to the risk of currency fluctuations over the one year term.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rono vs. Gomez (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Agli Dakling
    789 views1 page
    1. Cristobal Roño received a loan of P4,000 in Japanese fiat currency from Jose Gomez in 1944 with the agreement to repay the loan one year later in the prevailing currency. 2. After one year, Gomez sued Roño to collect the debt. The court ruled in favor of Gomez and ordered Roño to pay P4,000 in Philippine currency, which was the prevailing currency at the time of repayment. 3. Roño argued this was usurious as the Japanese currency he received was only worth P100 in Philippine currency. However, the Supreme Court ruled the contract was aleatory as both parties agreed to the risk of currency fluctuations over the one year term.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Cristobal Roño received a loan of P4,000 in Japanese fiat currency from Jose Gomez in 1944 with the agreement to repay the loan one year later in the prevailing currency. 2. After one year, Gomez sued Roño to collect the debt. The court ruled in favor of Gomez and ordered Roño to pay P4,000 in Philippine currency, which was the prevailing currency at the time of repayment. 3. Roño argued this was usurious as the Japanese currency he received was only worth P100 in Philippine currency. However, the Supreme Court ruled the contract was aleatory as both parties agreed to the risk of currency fluctuations over the one year term.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    789 views1 page

    Rono vs. Gomez (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Agli Dakling
    1. Cristobal Roño received a loan of P4,000 in Japanese fiat currency from Jose Gomez in 1944 with the agreement to repay the loan one year later in the prevailing currency. 2. After one year, Gomez sued Roño to collect the debt. The court ruled in favor of Gomez and ordered Roño to pay P4,000 in Philippine currency, which was the prevailing currency at the time of repayment. 3. Roño argued this was usurious as the Japanese currency he received was only worth P100 in Philippine currency. However, the Supreme Court ruled the contract was aleatory as both parties agreed to the risk of currency fluctuations over the one year term.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 CRISTOBAL ROO, petitioner, vs. JOSE L. GOMEZ, ET AL., respondents.

    *Usurious Transactions #6 (round 2) STATEMENT OF FACTS: On October 5, 1944, Cristobal Roo received as a loan from Jose L. Gomez P4,000.00 in Japanese fiat money (mickey mouse money). The contract of loan is under the condition that said loan will not earn interest and that it will be paid in the currency then prevailing one year after the execution of the contract. After a year, a collection suit was filed by respondent Gomez against petitioner Rono to collect the latters debt. Subsequently, the trial court ruled in favor of Gomez. The court ordered Rono to pay the respondent an amount of P4,000.00 in Philippine currency which was then the prevailing currency at the time of payment. Contending such decision, Rono insists that the contract taken in favor of respondent is contrary to law, public order and good morals since his loan then of P4,000.00 mickey mouse money is equivalent only to P100.00 of the Philippine currency which is the prevailing currency at the time of payment. CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER: Roo asserts that the decision of the trial court ruling in favor of respondent is contrary to the Usury law, because on the basis of calculations by Government experts he only received the equivalent of P100 Philippine pesos and now he is required to give four thousand pesos or interest greatly in excess of the lawful rates. CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT: That both parties agreed that the loaned amount of P4,000.00 mickey mouse money be paid in the currency prevailing by the end of one year. The civil code supports such agreement when it says "obligations arising from contracts shall have the force of law between the contracting parties and must be performed in accordance with their stipulations" (Article 1091). RESOLUTION OF SC: The SC ruled that that the contract between the parties is an aleatoty contract. The eventual gain of Gomez is not interest within the meaning of the Usury law. In the first place, Rono is not paying an interest. Such is evidenced by the fact that in his promissory note, he indicated that the money loaned will not earn any interest. Furthermore, both parties clearly agreed at the time of the execution of the contract that the loaned money (P4,000.00 mickey mouse) will be paid in the currency prevailing by the end of the stipulated period of one year. The devaluation of the Mickey mouse money is due to an event unforseable by any man; that the increased intrinsic value and purchasing power of the current money is consequence of an event (change of currency) which at the time of the contract neither party knew would certainly happen within the period of one year. However, both parties subjected their rights and obligations to that contingency. Thus, the contract in question is legal and obligatory and is not subject to the operation of the Usury law.

    You might also like