305200612-Credit-Transactions-Case-Digests.pdf - CRED TRANS Digest Pool | Atty Sarona SY 2015-2016 PART I CONCEPT OF CREDIT TRANSACTIONS PART II

305200612-Credit-Transactions-Case-Digests.pdf - CRED TRANS...

This preview shows page 1 out of 241 pages.

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 241 pages?

Unformatted text preview: CRED TRANS Digest Pool | Atty. Sarona SY 2015-2016 PART I: CONCEPT OF CREDIT TRANSACTIONS PART II: LOAN (Articles 1933 – 1961) I. II. Concept Commodatum PAJUYO VS. CA FACTS: In June 1979, petitioner Pajuyo paid P400 to a certain Perez for the rights over a 250-square meter lot in Quezon City. Pajuyo then constructed a house on the lot and he and his family lived in the house from 1979 to 1985. On 8 December 1985, Pajuyo and private respondent Guevarra executed a Kasunduan or agreement. Pajuyo, as owner of the house, allowed Guevarra to live in the house for free provided Guevarra would maintain the cleanliness and orderliness of the house. Guevarra promised that he would voluntarily vacate the premises on Pajuyos demand. In September 1994, Pajuyo informed Guevarra of his need of the house and demanded that Guevarra vacate the house. Guevarra refused. Pajuyo filed an ejectment case against Guevarra with the MTC. Guevarra claimed that Pajuyo had no valid title or right of possession over the lot because the lot is within the 150 hectares set aside by Proclamation No. 137 for socialized housing. Guevarra pointed out that from December 1985 to September 1994, Pajuyo did not show up or communicate with him. Guevarra insisted that neither he nor Pajuyo has valid title to the lot (both were squatters). 1 the agreement is not for a price certain. ISSUE: Whether or not the contractual relationship between Pajuyo and Guevarra was that of a commodatum. HELD: No. In a contract of commodatum, one of the parties delivers to another something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it. Essential features of commodatum: it is gratuitous. the use of the thing belonging to another is for a certain period Thus, the bailor cannot demand the return of the thing loaned until after expiration of the period stipulated, or after accomplishment of the use for which the commodatum is constituted. If the bailor should have urgent need of the thing, he may demand its return for temporary use. If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the bailor, he can demand the return of the thing at will, in which case the contractual relation is called a precarium, which is a kind of commodatum. The Kasunduan reveals that the accommodation accorded by Pajuyo to Guevarra 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. MTC rendered its decision in favor of Pajuyo. Pajuyo allowed Guevarra to use the house only by tolerance. Thus, Guevarras refusal to vacate the house on Pajuyos demand made Guevarras continued possession of the house illegal. RTC affirmed the MTC decision in toto. The effects of the Kasunduan are also different from that of a commodatum. Case law on ejectment has treated relationship based on tolerance as one that is akin to a landlordtenant relationship where the withdrawal of permission would result in the termination of the lease. The tenants withholding of the property would then be unlawful. CA reversed the MTC and RTC rulings and declared that Pajuyo and Guevarra illegally occupied the contested lot which the government owned. CA also declared that Pajuyo and Guevarra are in pari delicto or in equal fault. Moreover, the Kasunduan is not a lease contract but a commodatum because Even assuming that the relationship between Pajuyo and Guevarra is one of commodatum, Guevarra as bailee would still have the duty to turn over possession of the property to Pajuyo, the bailor. The obligation to deliver or to return the thing received attaches to contracts for safekeeping, CRED TRANS Digest Pool | Atty. Sarona SY 2015-2016 2 or contracts of commission, administration and commodatum. Doronilla issued 3 postdated checks, all of which were dishonored. Guevarra freely entered into the Kasunduan. Guevarra cannot now impugn the Kasunduan after he had benefited from it. The Kasunduan binds Guevarra. Vives received a letter from Doronilla assuring him that his money was intact and would be returned to him. Doronilla issued a postdated check for P212k in favor of Vives. However, upon presentment to the drawee bank, the check was dishonored. Doronilla requested Vives to present the same check on a later date but it was again dishonored. The Kasunduan is not void for purposes of determining who between Pajuyo and Guevarra has a right to physical possession of the contested property. The Kasunduan is the undeniable evidence of Guevarras recognition of Pajuyos better right of physical possession. Guevarra is clearly a possessor in bad faith. The absence of a contract would not yield a different result, as there would still be an implied promise to vacate. PRODUCERS BANK VS. CA FACTS: Sometime in 1979, private respondent Vives was asked by his neighbor and friend Sanchez to help her friend, Col. Doronilla, in incorporating his business (Sterela). Sanchez asked Vives to deposit in a bank a certain amount of money in the bank account of Sterela for purposes of its incorporation. She assured Vives that he could withdraw his money from said account within a months time. Vives, Sanchez, Doronilla and a certain Dumagpi, Doronillas private secretary, met and discussed the matter. Relying on the assurances and representations of Sanchez and Doronilla, Vives issued a check in the amount of P200k in favor of Sterela which was subsequently deposited under Sterela's account. Subsequently, Vives learned that Sterela was no longer holding office in the address previously given to him. He went to the Bank to verify if their money was still intact. Atienza, the assistant manager, informed them that part of the money had been withdrawn by Doronilla, and that only P90k remained therein. He likewise told them that they could not withdraw the remaining amount because it had to answer for some postdated checks issued by Doronilla. Sterela, through Doronilla, obtained a loan of P175k from the Bank. To cover payment, Vives referred the matter to a lawyer, who made a written demand upon Doronilla for the return of his clients money. Doronilla issued another check but was again dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Vives instituted an action for recovery of sum of money in the RTC against Doronilla, Sanchez, Dumagpi and Producers Bank. He also filed criminal actions against Doronilla, Sanchez and Dumagpi in the RTC. RTC rendered a decision in favor of Vives. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in Toto. Petitioner contends that the transaction between private respondent and Doronilla is a simple loan (mutuum) since all the elements of a mutuum are present: first, what was delivered by private respondent to Doronilla was money, a consumable thing; and second, the transaction was onerous as Doronilla was obliged to pay interest, as evidenced by the check issued by Doronilla in the amount of P212k, or P12k more than what Vives deposited in Sterelas bank account. ISSUE: Whether or not the transaction between Doronilla and Vives was one of simple loan or mutuum. HELD: No, it was a commodatum. Article 1933 of the Civil Code distinguishes between the two kinds of loans in this wise: By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case CRED TRANS Digest Pool | Atty. Sarona SY 2015-2016 the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum. Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. Simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest. In commodatum, the bailor retains the ownership of the thing loaned, while in simple loan, ownership passes to the borrower. The foregoing provision seems to imply that if the subject of the contract is a consumable thing, such as money, the contract would be a mutuum. However, there are some instances where a commodatum may have for its object a consumable thing. 3 that the bailee in commodatum acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits. Hence, it was only proper for Doronilla to remit the interest. Neither does the Court agree with petitioners contention that it is not solidarily liable for the return of private respondents money because it was not privy to the transaction between Doronilla and Vives. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers shall be held primarily and solidarily liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Article 1936 of the Civil Code provides: Consumable goods may be the subject of commodatum if the purpose of the contract is not the consumption of the object, as when it is merely for exhibition. Thus, if consumable goods are loaned only for purposes of exhibition, or 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. The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall be accorded primordial consideration in determining the actual character of a contract. The evidence shows that Vives agreed to deposit his money in the savings account of Sterela 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 30 days. Vives merely accommodated Doronilla by lending his money without consideration, as a favor to 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 Vives after 30 days. Doronillas attempts to return the amount did not convert the transaction from a commodatum into a mutuum because such was not the intent of the parties and because the additional P12k corresponds to the fruits of the lending of the P200k. Article 1935 of the Civil Code expressly states Atienzas acts of helping Doronilla, a customer of the petitioner, were obviously done in furtherance of petitioners interests. It was established that the transfer of funds from Sterelas savings account to its current account could not have been accomplished by Doronilla without the invaluable assistance of Atienza, and that it was their connivance which was the cause of private respondents loss. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, petitioner is liable for private respondents loss and is solidarily liable with Doronilla and Dumagpi for the return of the P200k since it is clear that petitioner failed to prove that it exercised due diligence to prevent the unauthorized withdrawals from Sterela's savings account. MINA VS. PASCUAL FACTS: Francisco Fontanilla and Andres Fontanilla were brothers. Francisco acquired a lot in Laoag, the property having been awarded to him through its purchase at a public auction. Andres, with the consent of his brother Francisco, erected a warehouse on a part of the said lot. Francisco, the former owner of the lot, being dead, the plaintiffs, Alejandro Mina, et al., were recognized as his heirs. Andres, the former owner of the warehouse, also having died, the children of Ruperta Pascual were recognized (though it is not said how) and consequently are entitled to the said building. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the owners of the warehouse, while the plaintiffs CRED TRANS Digest Pool | Atty. Sarona SY 2015-2016 are undoubtedly, the owners of the part of the lot occupied by that building, as well as of the remainder thereof. This was the state of affairs when on May 6, 1909, Ruperta Pascual, as the guardian of her minor children (defendants), petitioned the CFI for authorization to sell "the 6/7 of the one-half of the warehouse, of 14 by 11 meters, together with its lot." The plaintiffs opposed the petition of Ruperta Pascual for the reason that the latter had included the lot occupied by the warehouse, which they claimed was their exclusive property. The plaintiffs requested the court to decide the question of the ownership of the lot before it pass upon the petition for the sale of the warehouse. But the court before determining the matter of the ownership of the lot occupied by the warehouse, ordered the sale of the building. The warehouse, together with the lot, was sold to Cu Joco (P2890) at a public auction. The plaintiffs insisted upon a decision of the question of the ownership of the lot, and the court decided it by holding that the land belonged to the owner of the warehouse which had been built thereon thirty years before. The plaintiffs appealed and this court reversed the judgment of the lower court and held that the appellants were the owners of the lot in question. When the judgment became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued and the plaintiffs were given possession of the lot; but soon thereafter the trial court annulled this possession for the reason that it affected Cu Joco, who had not been a party to the suit in which that writ was served. It was then that the plaintiffs commenced the present action for the purpose of having the sale of the said lot declared null and void and of no force and effect. An agreement was had add to the facts, the ninth paragraph of which is as follows: 9. That the herein plaintiffs excepted to the judgment and appealed therefrom to the 4 Supreme Court which found for them by holding that they are the owners of the lot in question, although there existed and still exists a commodatum by virtue of which the guardianship (meaning the defendants) had and has the use, and the plaintiffs the ownership, of the property, with no finding concerning the decree of the lower court that ordered the sale. ISSUE: Whether or not there is a contract of commodatum. HELD: No. Although both litigating parties may have agreed in their idea of the commodatum, it is not, a question of fact but of law. The denomination given by them to the use of the lot granted by Francisco Fontanilla to his brother, Andres Fontanilla, is not acceptable. Contracts are not to be interpreted in conformity with the name that the parties thereto agree to give them, but must be construed, duly considering their constitutive elements, as they are defined and denominated by law. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to the other, either anything not perishable, in order that the latter may use it during the certain period and return it to the former, in which case it is called commodatum . . . (art. 1740, Civil Code). It is, therefore, an essential feature of the commodatum that the use of the thing belonging to another shall for a certain period. Francisco Fontanilla did not fix any definite period or time during which Andres Fontanilla could have the use of the lot whereon the latter was to erect a stone warehouse of considerable value, and so it is that for the past 30 years of the lot has been used by both Andres and his successors in interest. The present contention of the plaintiffs that Cu Joco, now in possession of the lot, should pay rent for it at the rate of P5 a month, would destroy the theory of the commodatum sustained by them, since, according to the second paragraph of the aforecited article 1740, "commodatum is essentially CRED TRANS Digest Pool | Atty. Sarona SY 2015-2016 gratuitous," With that expectation in view, it appears more likely that Francisco intended to allow his brother Andres a surface right; but this right supposes the payment of an annual rent, and Andres had the gratuitous use of the lot. FELIX DE LOS SANTOS VS AGUSTINA JARRA (1910 CASE) FACTS: Felix de los Santos brought suit against Agusitina Jarra (the administratrix of the estate of Magdaleno Jimenea, he alleges that Jimenea borrowed and obtained from the plaintiff 10 first class carabos, to be used at the animal power mill of Jimenea’s hacienda, without recompense or remuneration for the use of it and under the sole condition that they should be returned to the owner as soon as the work at the mill was terminated. Jimenea however, did not return the carabaos even though de los Santos claimed their return after the work at the mill was finished. Jimenea died in 1904 (before the suit) and Jarra was appointed by the CFI as administratrix of his estate. De los Santos presented his claim to the commissioners of the estate of Jimenea for return of the carabaos. (for the carabaos to be exluded from the estate of Jimenea). The commissioners rejected his claim, and thus a lawsuit ensued. Jarra answered and said that it was true that the late Jimenea asked the plaintiff to loan him ten carabaos, but that he only obtained THREE (3) second-class carabaos, which were afterwards sold by the Delos Santos to Jimenea. (Basically Jarra denied all the allegations in the complaint) The case came up for trial and the court rendered judgment against Jarra and ordering her to return to de los Santos 6 second-class and third class carabaos. The value of which was 120 each so 720 pesos. Jarra moved for a new trial on the ground that the findings of fact were openly and manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence. The record however, discloses that it has been fully proven from the testimonies of a number 5 of witnesses that Santos, sent in charge of various persons, the 10 carabaos requested by Jimenea (it was revealed that Jimenea is the father in law of de los Santos). Also, de los Santos produced 2 letters proving that Jimenea received them in the presence of said persons (brother of Jimenea) who saw the animals arrive at the hacienda. FOUR of the carabaos died of rinderpest and thus the judgment appealed from only deals with 6 carabaos. THE ALLEGED PURCHASE of 3 carabaos by Jimenea from his son-in-law Santos is not evidenced by any trustworthy evidence. Therefore, it is not true. From the foregoing, it may be logically inferred that the carabaos loaned or given on commodatum to the deceased Jimenea were ten in number, that 6 survived and that these carabaos have not been returned to the owner delos Santos, and lastly, that the 6 carabaos were not the property of the deceased nor any of his descendants, it is the duty of the administratrix to return them or indemnify the owner for the value. ISSUE: W/N the contracts is one of a commodatum. HELD: YES. The carabaos were given on commodatum as these were delivered to be used by defendant. Upon failure of defendant to return the cattle upon demand, he is under the obligation to indemnify the plaintiff by paying him their value. Since the 6 carabaos were not the property of the deceased or of any of his descendants, it is the duty of the administratrix of the estate to either return them or indemnify the owner thereof of their value. It was not part of Jimenea’s estate. Therefore Agustina Jarra should exclude it or indemnify De los Santos… “for the reasons above set forth, by which the errors assigned to the judgment appealed from have been refuted, and considering that the same is in accordance with the law and the merits of the case, it is our opinion that it should be affirmed and we do hereby affirm it with the costs against appellant. RATIO: The ratio differentiates a loan from a CRED TRANS Digest Pool | Atty. Sarona SY 2015-2016 commodatum. Art 1740. (Old civil code) By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to the other, either anything not perishable (in the new civil code it’s consumable), in order that the latter may use it during a certain period and return it to the former, in which case it is called commodatum, or money or any other perishable thing, under the condition to return an equal amount of the same kind and quality, in which case it is merely called a loan. Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. A simple loan may be gratuitous, or mad...
View Full Document

  • Winter '17
  • Atty. Lopez
  • Sula

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture