Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Garcia
-vsRica 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 petitioners request that respondent use her own
checks instead of Santiagos.
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.
lies under Article 1170, led to the particular injuries under Article 2217 of
the Civil Code for which moral damages are remunerative. The somewhat
unusual attending circumstances to the purchase at Coster that there
was a deadline for the completion of that purchase by petitioner before
any delay would redound to the injury of his several traveling companions
gave rise to the moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded
feelings and social humiliation sustained by Pantaleon, as concluded by
the RTC.
4. 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
Republic v. Bagtas
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.
Depositors who place their money with the bank are considered
creditors of the bank. The bank acquires ownership of the money
deposited by its clients, making the money taken by respondents as
belonging to the bank.
Bank: that the interest rate changes every month based on the
prevailing market rate and notified petitioners of the prevailing rate by
calling them thru a telephone monthly before their account becomes past
due. When asked if there was any written authority from petitioners for
respondent to increase the interest rate unilaterally, respondent answered
that petitioners signed a promissory note indicating that they agreed to
pay interest at the prevailing rate.
contracts. For indeed, one-sided impositions do not have the force of law
between the parties, because such impositions are not based on the
parties essential equality.
Effect: Modifications in the rate of interest for loans pursuant to an
escalation clause must be the result of an agreement between the parties.
Unless such important change in the contract terms is mutually agreed
upon, it has no binding effect. In the absence of consent on the part of the
petitioners to the modifications in the interest rates, the adjusted rates
cannot bind them.
NOTE: The lender and the borrower should agree on the imposed rate, and
such imposed rate should be in writing. Escalation clauses are not
basically wrong or legally objectionable as long as they are not solely
potestative but based on reasonable and valid grounds.
Concurring Opinion:
Points to consider in drafting a valid escalation clause: (DAP)
1)
Firstly, as a matter of equity and consistent with P.O. No. 1684, the
escalation clause must be paired with a de-escalation clause.
2)
Secondly, so as not to violate the principle of mutuality, the
escalation must be pegged to the prevailing market rates, and not merely
make a generalized reference to "any increase or decrease in the interest
rate" in the event a law or a Central Bank regulation is passed.
3)
Thirdly, consistent with the nature of contracts, the proposed
modification must be the result of an agreement between the parties.