View full case

AMELIA C. ELAYDA v. CA

FACTS:

The proceedings in this case began with a complaint filed by Amelia C. Elayda against the Spouses Pedro Roxas and Leonora T. Roxas in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) at Quezon City. Elayda sought recovery of loans totaling P90,000.00, with interest, which were secured by post-dated checks and receipts indicating that the Roxas spouses had received jewelry to be sold on commission. The Roxas spouses admitted receiving the loans but claimed that they had already paid the loans in full, and that they had been charged usurious interest. The trial court heard the case and Elayda presented evidence in support of her claim. The Roxas spouses, in turn, presented evidence to show that they had received two separate loans amounting to P90,000.00 and had made payments totaling P112,674.00. Elayda attempted to submit a statement from her accountant to show that the total loan amount was P186,000.00, but the statement was rejected. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of the Roxas spouses, ordering Elayda to reimburse them P22,674.00 and dismissing her complaint. Elayda filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial, which was denied. She then appealed to the Court of Appeals, but her appeal was also unsuccessful. Elayda then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Trial Court's adjudgment that Elayda should return the excess payment of P22,674.00 to the Roxases.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering the partial payments made by the Roxases prior to November 17, 1964, as part of the liquidated unpaid balance.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the only loans extended to the Roxases were two, disregarding the checks presented by Elayda.

  4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Roxases paid 4% interest monthly to Elayda.

  5. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Elayda's failure to deny specifically and under oath the allegation of usury constituted an admission.

  6. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ordering the Roxases to pay P90,000.00 plus interest and attorney's fees.

RULING:

  1. The petition for review on certiorari is denied and the judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming the Trial Court's decision, is affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari of a judgment of the Court of Appeals, this Court being bound by the latter's findings of fact, subject to certain well-defined exceptions.

  • Admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings, do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake.

  • Allegations of usury are deemed admitted if not denied specifically and under oath.