1. People v.

Concepcion
G.R. No. 19190 (November 29, 1922)

FACTS:
Defendant authorized an extension of credit in favor of Concepcion, a co-
partnership. Defendant’s wife was a director of this co-partnership. Defendant
was found guilty of violating Sec. 35 of Act No. 2747 which says that “The National
Bank shall not, directly or indirectly, grant loans to any of the members of the Board
of Directors of the bank nor to agents of the branch banks.” This Section was
in effect in 1919 but was repealed in Act No. 2938 approved on January 30, 1921.

ISSUE:
W/N Defendant can be convicted of violating Sections of Act No. 2747,
which were repealed by Act No. 2938.

HELD:
In the interpretation and construction, the primary rule is to ascertain and
give effect to the intention of the Legislature. Section 49 in relation to Sec. 25 of Act
No. 2747 provides a punishment for any person who shall violate any provisions of
the Act. Defendant contends that the repeal of these Sections by Act No. 2938 has
served to take away basis for criminal prosecution. The Court holds that where an
act of the Legislature which penalizes an offense repeals a former act which
penalized the same offense, such repeal does not have the
effect of thereafter depriving the Courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence
offenders charged with violations of the old law.

2. Republic V. Bagtas (1962)

FACTS:

May 8, 1948: Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the Republic of the Philippines through
the Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls: a Red Sindhi with a book value of
P1,176.46, a Bhagnari, of P1,320.56 and a Sahiniwal, of P744.46, for a period of 1
year for breeding purposes subject to a breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the
bulls

May 7, 1949: Jose requested for a renewal for another year for the three bulls but
only one bull was approved while the others are to be returned

March 25, 1950: He wrote to the Director of Animal Industry that he would pay the
value of the 3 bulls

October 17, 1950: he reiterated his desire to buy them at a value with a deduction of
yearly depreciation to be approved by the Auditor General.

October 19, 1950: Director of Animal Industry advised him that either the 3 bulls are
to be returned or their book value without deductions should be paid not later than
October 31, 1950 which he was not able to do
December 20, 1950: An action at the CFI was commenced against Jose praying that
he be ordered to return the 3 bulls or to pay their book value of P3,241.45 and the
unpaid breeding fee of P199.62, both with interests, and costs

July 5, 1951: Jose V. Bagtas, through counsel Navarro, Rosete and Manalo,
answered that because of the bad peace and order situation in Cagayan Valley,
particularly in the barrio of Baggao, and of the pending appeal he had taken to the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the President of the Philippines,
he could not return the animals nor pay their value and prayed for the dismissal of
the complaint.

RTC: granted the action

December 1958: granted an ex-parte motion for the appointment of a special sheriff
to serve the writ outside Manila

December 6, 1958: Felicidad M. Bagtas, the surviving spouse of Jose who died on
October 23, 1951 and administratrix of his estate, was notified

January 7, 1959: she file a motion that the 2 bulls where returned by his son on June
26, 1952 evidenced by recipt and the 3rd bull died from gunshot wound inflicted
during a Huk raid and prayed that the writ of execution be quashed and that a writ of
preliminary injunction be issued.

ISSUE:

W/N the contract is commodatum and NOT a lease and the estate should be liable
for the loss due to force majeure due to delay.

HELD:

YES. writ of execution appealed from is set aside, without pronouncement as to

costs

If contract was commodatum then Bureau of Animal Industry retained ownership or

title to the bull it should suffer its loss due to force majeure. A contract of
commodatum is essentially gratuitous. If the breeding fee be considered a
compensation, then the contract would be a lease of the bull. Under article 1671 of
the Civil Code the lessee would be subject to the responsibilities of a possessor in
bad faith, because she had continued possession of the bull after the expiry of the
contract. And even if the contract be commodatum, still the appellant is liable if he
keeps it longer than the period stipulated the estate of the late defendant is only
liable for the sum of P859.63, the value of the bull which has not been returned
because it was killed while in the custody of the administratrix of his estate.

Special proceedings for the administration and settlement of the estate of the
deceased Jose V. Bagtas having been instituted in the CFI, the money judgment
rendered in favor of the appellee cannot be enforced by means of a writ of execution
but must be presented to the probate court for payment by the appellant, the
administratrix appointed by the court.

3. Producers Bank of the Philippines vs CA (2003)

Facts:

• Vives (will be the creditor in this case) was asked by his friend Sanchez to
help the latter’s friend, Doronilla (will be the debtor in this case) in incorporating
Doronilla’s business “Strela”. This “help” basically involved Vives depositing a certain
amount of money in Strela’s bank account for purposes of incorporation (rationale:
Doronilla had to show that he had sufficient funds for incorporation). This amount
shall later be returned to Vives.

• Relying on the assurances and representations of Sanchez and Doronilla,

Vives issued a check of P200,00 in favor of Strela and deposited the same into
Strela’s newly-opened bank account (the passbook was given to the wife of Vives
and the passbook had an instruction that no withdrawals/deposits will be allowed
unless the passbook is presented).

• Later on, Vives learned that Strela was no longer holding office in the address
previously given to him. He later found out that the funds had already been
withdrawn leaving only a balance of P90,000. The Vives spouses tried to withdraw
the amount, but it was unable to since the balance had to answer for certain
postdated checks issued by Doronilla.

• Doronilla made various tenders of check in favor of Vives in order to pay his
debt. All of which were dishonored.

• Hence, Vives filed an action for recovery of sum against Doronilla, Sanchez,
Dumagpi and Producer’s Bank.

• TC & CA: ruled in favor of Vives.

Issue/s:

(1) WON the transaction is a commodatum or a mutuum. COMMODATUM.

(2) WON the fact that there is an additional P 12,000 (allegedly representing
interest) in the amount to be returned to Vives converts the transaction from
commodatum to mutuum. NO.

(3) WON Producer’s Bank is solidarily liable to Vives, considering that it was not
privy to the transaction between Vives and Doronilla. YES.
Held/Ratio:

(1) The transaction is a commodatum.

• CC 1933 (the provision distinguishing between the two kinds of loans) seem
to imply that if the subject of the contract is a consummable thing, such as money,
the contract would be a mutuum. However, there are instances when a
commodatum may have for its object a consummable thing. Such can be found in
CC 1936 which states that “consummable 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”. In this case, the intention of the parties was merely
for exhibition. Vives agreed to deposit his money in Strela’s account specifically for
purpose of making it appear that Streal had sufficient capitalization for incorporation,
with the promise that the amount should be returned withing 30 days.

(2) CC 1935 states that “the bailee in commodatum acquires the use of the thing
loaned but not its fruits”. In this case, the additional P 12,000 corresponds to the
fruits of the lending of the P 200,000.

(3) Atienza, the Branch Manager of Producer’s Bank, allowed the withdrawals on
the account of Strela despite the rule written in the passbook that neither a deposit,
nor a withdrawal will be permitted except upon the production of the passbook (recall
in this case that the passbook was in the possession of the wife of Vives all along).
Hence, this only proves to show that Atienza allowed the withdrawals because he
was party to Doronilla’s scheme of defrauding Vives. By virtue of CC 2180, PNB, as
employer, is held primarily and solidarily liable for damages caused by their
employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Atienza’s acts, in helpong
Doronilla, a customer of the bank, were obviously done in furtherance of the
business of the bank, even though in the process, Atienza violated some rules.

4. Carolyn M. Garcia -vs- Rica Marie S. Thio

GR No. 154878, 16 March 2007

FACTS:

Respondent Thio received from petitioner Garcia two crossed checks which
amount to US$100,000 and US$500,000, respectively, payable to the order of
Marilou Santiago. According to petitioner, respondent failed to pay the principal
amounts of the loans when they fell due and so she filed a complaint for sum of
money and damages with the RTC. Respondent denied that she contracted the two
loans and countered that it was Marilou Satiago to whom petitioner lent the money.
She claimed she was merely asked y petitioner to give the checks to Santiago. She
issued the checks for P76,000 and P20,000 not as payment of interest but to
accommodate petitioner’s request that respondent use her own checks instead of
Santiago’s.
 RTC ruled in favor of petitioner. CA reversed RTC and ruled that there was
no contract of loan between the parties.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not there was a contract of loan between petitioner and respondent.

(2) Who borrowed money from petitioner, the respondent or Marilou Santiago?

HELD:

(1) The Court held in the affirmative. A loan is a real contract, not consensual, and as
such I perfected only upon the delivery of the object of the contract. Upon delivery of
the contract of loan (in this case the money received by the debtor when the checks
were encashed) the debtor acquires ownership of such money or loan proceeds and
is bound to pay the creditor an equal amount. It is undisputed that the checks were
delivered to respondent.

(2) However, the checks were crossed and payable not to the order of the
respondent but to the order of a certain Marilou Santiago. Delivery is the act by
which the res or substance is thereof placed within the actual or constructive
possession or control of another. Although respondent did not physically receive the
proceeds of the checks, these instruments were placed in her control and
possession under an arrangement whereby she actually re-lent the amount to
Santiago.

Petition granted; judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

5. Pajuyo v. CA
GR No. 146364 June 3, 2004

FACTS:

Pajuyo entrusted a house to Guevara for the latter's use provided he should return
the same upon demand and with the condition that Guevara should be responsible
of the maintenance of the property. Upon demand Guevara refused to return the
property to Pajuyo. The petitioner then filed an ejectment case against Guevara with
the MTC who ruled in favor of the petitioner. On appeal with the CA, the appellate
court reversed the judgment of the lower court on the ground that both parties are
illegal settlers on the property thus have no legal right so that the Court should leave
the present situation with respect to possession of the property as it is, and ruling
further that the contractual relationship of Pajuyo and Guevara was that of a
commodatum.
ISSUE:

Is the contractual relationship of Pajuyo and Guevara that of a commodatum?

HELD:

No. The Court of Appeals’ theory that the Kasunduan is one of commodatum is
devoid of merit. 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. An essential feature of commodatum is that it is gratuitous. Another feature
of commodatum is that 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. Under the Civil Code, precarium 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. 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 landlord-tenant relationship where the withdrawal of permission
would result in the termination of the lease. The tenant’s withholding of the property
would then be unlawful.