CASE TITLE
TRANSMISSIBILITY OF RIGHTS
HEMADY VS. LUZON SURETY
CO.,
Genato vs. bayhon
San agustin vs. court of
appeals
Project builders v. court of
appeals.
FACTS AND CONCEPT INVOLVED
Money debts of the deceased must be liquidated and paid from his estate before
the residue is distributed among the heirs.
As a general rule, obligations arising from contract are transmissible. The heirs are
not liable beyond the value of property he received from his decedent.
LOANS while he may no longer be compelled to pay the loan, the debt subsist
against his estate. No property or portion of the inheritance may be transmitted to
his heir unless the debt has been satisfied.
FACTS. The loan in this case was obtained by the respondent. Ehile the case was
pending before the court, he died. Hence the sourt ordered that no inheritance
should be distributed before the satisfaction of of the debt to be paid.
Heir are bound by the contract entered into the predecessors-in-interest.
PARI DELICTO/ ETOPPEL; when both parties are equally guilty, neither is entitled to
complain against the other-having entered into transaction with open eyes, and
having benefit from it, dais parties should be held in estoppel to assail and annul
their own deliberate acts.
GSIS sold parcel of land to the petitioner which was sold by petitioner one year
after the selling. The same, however was not approved to be registered until five
years of prohibition will be vanish. On the other hand, macaria was arrested
because of an alleged subversive, and she was detained for atleast two years. She
then went to Mindanao to hid for 4 years.
Bothe parties were declared to be in estoppel.
Credit transaction; and assignment of credit is an act of transferring, either
onerously or gratuitously, the right of an assignor to an assignee who would be
then capable of proceeding against the debtor for the enforcement of the credit.
The assignment of right takes place upon the completion of the contract.
The consent of the debtor is not necessary for its perfection, his knowledge thereof
or lack of it affecting only the efficaciousness of any payment he might make.
The insistence of the petitioner that the subject transaction should be considered a

USURIOUS TRANSACTION
Angel Jose Warehouse co. v.
chelda enterprise
Asian cathay finance v.
gravador
Security bank and trust
company
simple loan since private respondent did not communicate with the debtor, to
collect payment from them, is untenable. In an assignment of credit, the consent
of the debtor is not essential for the perfection of such assignment.
Loan with usurious interest; loan is valid but usurious interest is void.
Remedy for the creditor; the principal debt remaining without stipulation for
payment of the interest can still be recovered by judicial action. And in case of
such demand and debtor still incurs delay, the debt incurs interest from the date of
the demand, hence the legal interest would govern the interest and not the
stipulated interest in the contracts.
2% interest per month is indeed a usurious transaction.
Interests; interest rates, whenever unconscionable, may be equitably reduce or
even invalidated.
The invalidity of the usurious interest in the stipulated contract does not mean that
the creditor does not have any remedy to recover the principal amount borrowed
by the debtor.
Waiver. For the waiver to be valid and effective, it must, in the first place, be
couched in clear and unequivocal terms which will leave no doubt as to the
intention of a party to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him.
When the redemptioner chooses to exercise his right of redemption, it is the policy
of the law to aid rather that to defeat his purpose.
In a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that stipulated in
writing and in the absence thereof the rate shall be 12% per annum ** this was
revoked in the year 2003, hence we follow 6% per annum today.
Petitioner executed three promissory note of 100, 000 payable in 6 months haiving
an interest of 23%per annum. Upon the demand of payment of such promissory
note, the respondent alleged that the interest is usurious hence it is void. The
supreme court ruled that the contract entered into by the respondent with the
petitioner have the force and effect of law. The interest of 12% per annum is not
applicable in the case because there war stipulated interest set by parties. Hence,
 the court ruled that 12% interest per annum will apply in the absence of such
stipulations. The promissory were both signed by the parties voluntarily.
Solid bank v. permanent Obligations arising from contract may have the force of law between the parties.
homes incorporated There must be mutuality between parties based on their essential equality. A
contract containing a condition which makes its fulfilment dependent exclusively
upon the uncontrolled will of one of the contracting parties is void.

There was no showing that the either solid bank or permanent coerced each other
into the loan agreement. The terms of the omnibus line agreement and the
promissory note were mutually and freely agreed upon by the parties.

An obligation to pay 10% interest per month on the loan is unconscionable and
against public policy.

Usurious law was implemented in the