You are on page 1of 7

People v.

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

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Section was in effect in 1919 but was repealed in Act No. 2938 approved on January 30, 1921.

W/N Defendant can be convicted of violating Sections of Act No. 2747, which were repealed by Act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

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.

Carolyn M. Garcia
Rica Marie S. Thio
GR No. 154878

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.

(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?


Sanchez asked private respondent to deposit in a bank a certain amount of money in the bank account of Sterela for purposes of its incorporation. went to the bank to open an account with Mrs. Vives and Sanchez as signatories. Arturo Doronilla. Metro Manila against Doronilla. judgment and resolution reversed and set aside. . Petition granted. Doronilla issued another check for P212. these instruments were placed in her control and possession under an arrangement whereby she actually re-lent the amount to Santiago. private respondent learned that part of the money was withdrawn without presentment of the passbook as it was his wife got hold of such. Dumagpi and petitioner. not consensual. the checks were crossed and payable not to the order of the respondent but to the order of a certain Marilou Santiago.000. Vives could not also withdraw said remaining amount because it had to answer for some postdated checks issued by Doronilla who opened a current account for Sterela and authorized the bank to debit savings.A GR no. the Sterela Marketing and Services (“Sterela” for brevity). who made a written demand upon Doronilla for the return of his client’s money. private respondent Franklin Vives was asked by his neighbor and friend Angeles Sanchez to help her friend and townmate. She assured private respondent that he could withdraw his money from said account within a month’s time. Although respondent did not physically receive the proceeds of the checks. Sanchez. A passbook was then issued to Mrs. It is undisputed that the checks were delivered to respondent. Private respondent referred the matter to a lawyer. and as such I perfected only upon the delivery of the object of the contract. ISSUE: WON THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE DORONILLA AND RESPONDENT VIVES WAS ONE OF SIMPLE LOAN. Private respondent instituted an action for recovery of sum of money in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig. A loan is a real contract. secretary of Doronilla.00 in private respondent’s favor but the check was again dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Col. in incorporating his business. Subsequently. Bank of the Philippines vs C. With this. Delivery is the act by which the res or substance is thereof placed within the actual or constructive possession or control of another. 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. (2) However. Hence this petition. Specifically. Sanchez and a certain Estrella Dumagpi. The RTC ruled in favor of the private respondent which was also affirmed in toto by the CA. 115324 FACTS: Sometime in 1979. (1) The Court held in the affirmative. Mrs. Vives. Vivies. Mrs.

In commodatum. upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid.R. If the bailor should have urgent need of the thing. They also agreed that Guevarra should leave upon demand. The foregoing provision seems to imply that if the subject of the contract is a consumable thing. Thus. In case of doubt. Later. June 3. either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it. Thus. he constructed a house and he and his family lived there. ownership passes to the borrower. Pajuyo agreed to let Guevarra live in the house for free provided that Guevarra maintain cleanliness and orderliness of the house. while in simple loan. An essential feature of commodatum is that it is gratuitous. hence an ejectment case was filed. No. Guevarra refused. A circumspect examination of the records reveals that the transaction between them was a commodatum. as when it is merely for exhibition. “In a contract of commodatum. 2004 Pajuyo purchased the rights over a property from Pedro Perez. Simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest. However. in which case the contract is called a commodatum. 146364. the loan is a commodatum and not a mutuum. there are some instances where a commodatum may have for its object a consumable thing. or money or other consumable thing. such as money. G. 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. in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum. Supreme Court held that the contract is not a commodatum. the bailor retains the ownership of the thing loaned. in . the contract would be a mutuum. Article 1933 of the Civil Code distinguishes between the two kinds of loans in this wise: By the contract of loan. Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. 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. the bailor cannot demand the return of the thing loaned until after expiration of the period stipulated. The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall be accorded primordial consideration in determining the actual character of a contract. one of the parties delivers to another. the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties shall be considered in such determination. he may demand its return for temporary use. CA. Pajuyo v. if consumable goods are loaned only for purposes of exhibition. Thereafter. Another feature of commodatum is that the use of the thing belonging to another is for a certain period. But when Pajuyo later told Guevarra that he needed the house. he can demand the return of the thing at will.HELD: NO. or after accomplishment of the use for which the commodatum is constituted. If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the bailor. 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.

which rendered the check stale). but only for the 2nd 6-month period after Sison decided not to buy the property. No interest will be charged for the 1st 6-month period [while Sison was making up her mind]. which case the contractual relation is called a precarium. For a debtor to continue in possession of the principal of the loan and to continue to use the same after maturity of the loan without payment of the monetary interest constitutes unjust enrichment on the part of the debtor at the expense of the creditor. otherwise. Under the Civil Code. precarium is a kind of commodatum. NO CA committed no error in awarding an annual 25% interest on the 2M even beyond the 6-month stipulated period. executing an affidavit of loss and by filing a petition[1] for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy. ISSUES & HOLDING – Ratio only discusses topic of INTEREST (as per syllabus)  WON compounded bank interest should be limited to 6 months as contained in the MOA. Bobie Rose Frias and Dr. RTC found that Frias was under obligation to pay Sison 2M with compounded interest pursuant to their MOA. Sison decided not to purchase the property. the phrase “for the last six months only” should be taken in the context of the entire agreement. regular interest continues to accrue since the debtor continues to use such principal amount.4M  Prior to this 6 month period. even if not mentioned in the body of the decision. SC notes that the agreement speaks of two (2) periods of 6 months each (see FACTS—words in bold & underline). 1991 [Frias received it only on June 11. There is nothing in the MOA that suggests that interest will be charged for 6 months only even if it takes forever for Frias to pay the loan. NO  WON Sison is entitled to moral damages. corrective. 1991]. CA DECISION AND RESOLUTION AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION—Award of attorney’s fees deleted . so shenotified Frias through a letter dated March 20. Sison would decide not to purchase the property. CA said that there was no basis for Frias to say that the interest should be charged for 6 months only. Sison averred that Frias tried to deprive her of the security for the loan by making a false report of the loss of her owner’s copy of TCT. RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment upon the filing of a 2M bond. The payment of regular interest constitutes the price or cost of the use of money. Frias has 6 months to pay 3M (amount shall earn compounded bank interest for the last 6 months only)  3M treated as a loan and the property considered as the security for the mortgage  Upon notice of intention to purchase.and Sison reminded Frias of their agreement that the 2M Sison paid should be considered as a loan payable within 6 months. San Diego-Sison On 7 Dec 1990. In this case.” Frias v. no interest shall be charged by Sison on the 3M  In the event that on the 6th month. Frias may still offer the property to other persons. 1991 until fully paid  70k representing premiums paid by Sison on the attachment bond with legal interest counted from the date of this decision until fully paid  100k moral. 1990. provided that 3M shall be paid to Sison including interest based on prevailing compounded bank interest + amount of sale in excess of 7M [should the property be sold at a price greater than 7M]  In case Frias has no other buyer within 6 months from the contract’s execution. Sison has 6 months to pay the balance of 3. it is not a loan.4M (6. Frias failed to pay this amount. RTC ordered Frias to pay Sison:  2M + 32% annual interest beginning December 7. instead of 1991. 1991 until fully paid. with compounded bank interest prevailing at the time [June 1991] the 2M was considered as a loan (as certified by the bank). It said that a loan always bears interest.4M less 3M MOA consideration) Frias received from Sison 3M (2M in cash. and until the principal sum due is returned to the creditor. exemplary damages [liable for moral damages because of Frias’ fraudulent scheme]  100k attorney’s fees + cost of litigation CA affirmed RTC with modification—32% reduced to 25%. Frias gave Sison the TCT and the Deed of Absolute Sale over the property. Sison filed a complaintfor sum of money with preliminary attachment. 1M post-dated check dated February 28. Flora San-Diego Sison entered into a MOA over Frias’property  MOA consideration is 3M  Sison has 6 months from the date of contract’s execution to notify Frias of her intention to purchase the property with the improvements at 6. YES  WON the grant of attorney’s fees is proper. The interest should commence on June 7.

CA affirmed RTCa. That interest should start on date of formal demand by Spouses to return the money not when contract was executed as stated by the RTCb. That since the Conditional Deed of Sale provided only for the return of thedownpayment in case of breach. o .7M. CA said that the issue to resolve isa. Estores still failed despite demands 7. As to the fees. On appeal. In reply. After almost 7 years and despite the payment of P3. Spouses demanded the return of the amount within 15 days from receipt 4. RTC ruled saying that the Spouses are entitled to the interest but only at 6% per annum andalso e ntitled to atty’s fees 10.inthediscretionofthecourt. Estores said they were willing to pay the principal amount but without theinterest as it was not agreed upona.5M by the Spouses. whether it is proper to impose interest for an obligation that does not involve a loanor forbearance of money in the absence of stipulation of the parties 11. 3. In Oct.2. Estores failed to relocate the house outside the perimeter of the subject lot andcomplete the necessary documentsc. Spouses agreed but imposed an interest of 12% annually 6. Spouses filed a complaint with the RTC against Estores and Roberto Arias (allegedly acted as Estores’ agent) 8. be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. 1993. Hermojina Estores and Spouses Supangan entered into a Conditional Deed ofSale where Estores offered to sell. Estores promised to return the same within 120 days 5. Estores still failedto comply with her obligation to handle the peaceful transfer of ownership as stated in 5provisions in the contract.” Estoresfailedonherobligationsdespitedemand. Article2210oftheCivilCodeexpresslyprovidesthat“[i]nterest may.Facts :1. It is only fair that interest be imposed because Estores failed to return the amountupon demand and used the money for her benefitb. That atty fees not proper because both RTC and CA sustained her contention that12% interest was uncalled for so it showed that Spouses did not win13. In Answer. Spouses contend:a. Not bound to pay interest because the deed only provided for the return of thedownpayment in case of failure to comply with her obligationsb. Estores contends. they claim that they were forced to litigate when Estores unjustlyheld the amount Issue :Is the impositionofinterestandattorney’sfeesisproper?YES InterestbasedonArt2209ofCC(6%)orunderCentralBankCricular416(12%)?12% Held : Interest may be imposed even in the absence of stipulation in the contract. and Spouses offered to buy a parcel of land in Cavite forP4. That Arias not be solidarily liable as he acted as agent only and did not expresslybind himself or exceeded his authority 12. In a letter in 2000. they cant be liable for legal interest as well 9.

” o Insuchcase. it shall be 6% In this case. no stipulation was made Contract involved in this case is not a loan but a Conditional Deed of Sale. o No question that the obligations were not met and the return of money not made Even if transaction was a Conditional Deed of Sale.“forbearanceofmoney.goodsorcreditspendinghappening ofcertaineventsorfulfilmentofcertainconditions.otherwisetherewoud l havebeennoneedtoaddthatphraseasaloanisalreadysuficientlydefinedintheCivilCode o Forbearanceofmoney.CourtofAppeasl . goods or credits In other cases. the stipulation governing the returnof the money can be considered as a forbearance of money which requires 12% interest In CrisminaGarments. Gen Rule: the applicable interest rate shall be computed in accordance with the stipulation ofthe parties Exc: if no stipulation. o however.Inc.goodsorcreditsshoud l thereforerefertoarrangementsotherthanloanagreements. .v.Forbearance -- “contractualobligationoflenderor creditortorefrainduringagivenperiodoftime.5M but hasn ’t done so o She is now in default The interest at the rate of 12% is applicable in the instant case.She admitted that the conditions were not fulfilled and was willing to return the fullamount of P3. applicable rate of interest shall be 12% per annum o When obligation arises out of a loan or forbearance of money.goodsorcredits”wlihavenodsitinctdefn i ito i nfroma loan.whereapersonacquiescestothetemporaryuseofhismoney.thephrase“forbearanceofmoney.fromrequiringtheborrowerordebtortorepayaloanordebt thendueandpayable.goodsorcredits”ismeanttohaveaseparate meaningfromaloan.

nodoubtthattheSpouseswereforcedtoiltigatetoprotecttheirinterest. i.torecovertheirmoney.Estores’unwarrantedwithholdingofthemoneyamountstoforbearanceofmoneywhichcanbe consideredasaninvoluntaryloansoratesi 12%startinginSept.e .000.00moreappropriate .TheamountofP50.2000 The award of attorney’s fees is warran ted..