Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PRODUCERS BANK V. CA
Relying on the assurances and representations of his neighbor and friend private
respondent issued a check in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00) in favor of the business of the borrower (Sterela) to aid in its
incorporation. He was assured private respondent that he could withdraw his money
from said account within a months time. It was, however, later discovered that
more than half of the deposit was already withdrawn by borrower and the balance
could not be withdrawn because of postdated checks issued by him. Borrower
issued several checks for an amount constituting the principle plus interest incurred
amount deposited in PRs favor to settle the loan however all were dishonored.
Can a commodatum exist even when the subject matter of a loan is a consumable
thing?
YES.
1) Article 1936 of the CC provides that consumable goods may very well be the
subject matter of a commodatum if loaned only for purposes other than
consumption like for exhibition only.
*Thus when the intention of the parties is to lend consumable goods and to
have the very same goods returned at the end of the period agreed upon, the
loan is a commodatum and not a mutuum.
2) The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall be accorded
primordial consideration in determining the actual character of a contract. In
case of doubt, the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties shall
be considered in such determination.
*evidence shows that private respondent agreed to deposit his money in the
savings account of Sterela specifically for the purpose of making it appear
that said firm had sufficient capitalization for incorporation, with the promise
that the amount shall be returned within thirty (30) days. Private respondent
merely accommodated borrower by lending his money without
consideration, as a favor to his good friend Sanchez. It was however clear to
the parties to the transaction that the money would not be removed from
Sterelas savings account and would be returned to private respondent after
thirty (30) days.
Does the mere fact of the payment of interest on the thing loaned, convert a
commodatum (being essentially gratuitous) into a mutuum?
NO.
1) The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall be accorded
primordial consideration in determining the actual character of a contract.
(see above)
*It was not the intent of the parties to stipulate an interest on the loan. The
additional amount that borrower attempted to pay corresponds to the fruits of
the lending of the P200,000.00.
2) Article 1935 of the CC: expressly states that [t]he bailee in commodatum
acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits.
*Hence, it was only proper for Doronilla(borrower) to remit to private
respondent the interest accruing to the latters money deposited with
petitioner. It did not convert the clearly commodatum loan to a mutuum.
PAJUYO VS. CA
Petitioner executed a Kasunduan with private respondent, allowing the latter to live
in his house for free provided that PR maintains the cleanliness and orderliness of
the house. PR promised he would voluntarily vacate the premises on petitioners
demand. However, upon petitioners demand, PR refused to vacate the house. This
prompted the institution of ejectment proceedings against PR. In his Answer, PR
claimed that Petitioner had no valid title or right of possession over the lot where
the house stands because it is within the area set aside by Proclamation No. 137 for
socialized housing.
Issue: Whether the absence of a price certain is sufficient for a loan to be
considered a commodatum
Does a commodatum exist when a thing is loaned to another for free but with an
obligation to maintain it in good condition?
RULING:
NO.
1) 1934: An essential feature of the commodatum is that it is gratuitous. (given
without exchange whatsoever)
*The accommodation accorded by A to B was not essentially gratuitous.
While the Kasunduan did not require Guevarra to pay rent, it obligated him to
maintain the property in good condition. The imposition of this obligation
makes the Kasunduan a contract different from a commodatum.
2) Better right to physical possession remained with A.
*Relationship based on tolerance as one that is akin to a landlord-tenant
relationship where the withdrawal of permission would result in the
termination of the lease. Thee tenants withholding of the property would
then be unlawful. B, having consented to the terms of the kasunduan and
benefitted from it is a possessor in bad faith for refusing to return the
property to A upon the latters demand.
GARCIA VS. THIO