the mortage contract states that all P200,000 loan was given to the Puertos in cash, but in reality

it was partly in cash

and jewelry easy to pad the value of jewelry beyond the actual amount

Eleuteria and Esperanza were doing business with each other for a long time, but there is no evidence to prove that they
were close friends

The real estate mortgage is usurious. The maximum rate of interest on loan is 12%, in this case P50,000 is clearly in
excess of that which the law allows the agreement of payment of interest is void

The principal debt is to be paid, but the interest is void.

The foreclosure is invalid as it stemmed from the enforcement of the usurious mortgage contract

Give back everything they owned, pay 150k wth 12% interest

Dacasin v Dacasin

Facts

1. The respondent and petitioner were married in Manila and had an only child name Stephanie. The respondent
sought and obtained a divorce decree against petitioner in Illinois. They were divorced and awarded the
respondent sole custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction of the case for enforcement purposes
2. The petitioner and respondent executed a contract for the joint custody of Stephanie and chose the Philippine
courts to adjudicate disputes. The respondent obtained from the Illinois court an order relinquishing the
jurisdiction of Philippine courts
3. Petitioner sued respondent in RTC Makati with alleged violation of the agreement, having sole custody of
Stephanie.
4. Respondent sought dismissal, lack of jurisdiction because of Illinois court retention of jurisdiction to enforce the
divorce decree

Issue/Ruling

1. Does the Makati RTC having jurisdiction of the case?

- The Illinois courts divorce decree did not strip it of its jurisdiction. The Illinoi court retained jurisdiction for
the purpose of enforcing all the various provisions of its judgement for dissolution. Petitioners seek
enforcement of the force divorce agreement on joint child custody (beyond the zone of the Illinoi courts)
2. Can they enforce the agreement on the child custody?
- No. Stephanie was under 7 years old and they were no longer married because of the divorce degree. The
Philippine law on child custody for spouses is also undisputed: no child under 7 years of age shall be
separated from the mother. Separated parents cannot contract away the provision in the family code unless
they can agree that the mother is not suitable to take care of the child. Objections to the law (unfairness)
questions the laws wisdom, not its validity.
- Cannot rely on the divorce decrees because the divorce was obtained by his Filipino spouse.
- Reverse the orders and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling

Ancheta v Guersey-Dalaygon

Facts

1. Spouses Audrey ONeill and W. Richard Guersey are US citizens living in the PH for 30 years. They have an adopted
daughter, Kyle.

2. Audrey died and bequeathed her entire estate to Richard. The will was admitted to the court of Maryland while
Ancheta became the ancillary administrator on the Philippines.
3. Richard married Candelaria Guersey Dalaygon and had two children (Kimberly, Kevin). Richard died and bequeathed
his estate to Dalaygon, save for the rights and interests over AIG Interiors which he left to Kyle.

4. Meanwhile, Ancheta, administrator of Audreys will, left Audreys estate to Richard and Kyle (Makati property: 3/4 to
Richard and to Kyle)

5. Richards will was administered and was divided among Dalaygon and the 3 children (2/5 to Dalaygon, 1/5 to each
child). Dalaygon opposed saying Richards will is governed by Maryland law: legacy passed to legatee the entire
interest of the testator in the property subject of legacy.

6. The trial court found merit in this and gave Richards entire undivided interest to the respondent

7. Respondent filed a petition to CA assailing the administration of Audreys will, saying the Maryland law was not
considered in the administration. Audrey left the entire state to Richard, therefore not only but the whole
should be given to the respondent

8. Petitioner denied this and said that he was only acting on good faith in submitting the partition for the best interest
for the surviving children of Audrey (Philippine law) and he was not aware of the laws in the State of Maryland. He also
states that it is already a final judgement and cannot be annulled.

Issues:

1. the administration of Audreys will is valid and binding

2. petitioner acted in good faith and did not commit fraud in administrating Audreys will

9. CA favored Guersay-Dalaygon. T

he petitioner occupies a position of trust and confidence. Petitioners failure to proficiently manage the distribution of
Audreys estate according to the terms of her will and as dictated by the applicable law amounted to extrinsic fraud.
Audreys will must be executed according to her national law as stated in Article 16 of the civil code. The petitioner
admits that he relied on the presumption that the Philippine Laws and the Law of Maryland are the same.

10. However, he insists that his application of the Philippine law was in good faith. The court did not accept this because
he had all the legal resources to determine the correct way of executing Audreys estate.

11. Illegal for aliens to own a land, however since the new owner is a Filipino, it is valid.