DEPOSIT

1. Voluntary Deposit
a. Characteristics
1. Aquino V. Deala
a. Where a contract of deposit has a stipulation for the payment of
interest is actually a LOAN.
b. The same thing happens with the contract of depositum. Although it
would seem that Art. 1760 CC indirectly authorizes the constitution of an
onerous deposit,, when there is an express stipulation to that effect, this
court has repeated held that the deposit should be considered a loan
when it contains a stipulation for payment of interest.
2. Javellana v. Lim
a. Where a contract denominated as a deposit but which did not
require the return of exactly the same coins and which eventually
provided for the payment of interest is actually a loan.
b. It may be inferred that there was no renewal of the contract of deposit
converted into a loan, because the defendants received said amount by
virtue of a real loan contract under the name of a deposit, since the so-
called bails were forth with authorized to dispose of the amount
deposited.
c. Such conduct on the part of the debtors is unquestionable evidence that
the transaction entered into between the interested parties was not a
deposit, but a real contract of loan.
3. BPI v. IAC
a. Money that is given to the bank for safekeeping is a deposit.
b. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing
belonging to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and of
returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the
principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but some other
contract.
4. Baron v. David
a. The deposit of things with the object of allowing the depositary to
use them is actually a loan.
b. Assuming it was a Contract of deposit, under article 1768 of the Civil
Code, when the depositary has permission to make use of the thing
deposited, the contract loses the character of mere deposit and becomes
a loan or a commodatum; and of course by appropriating the thing, the
bailee becomes responsible for its value.
c. It was the date of the demand of the plaintiffs for settlement that
determined the price to be paid by the defendant, and this is true whether
the palay was delivered in the character of sale with price undetermined
or in the character of deposit subject to use by the defendant.